A big day for the LDs and the PM – politicalbetting.com

Pulpstar said:

NerysHughes said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

Yes, cancer patients may not get timely treatment if the hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid. It's one of the better arguments for restrictions and so forth.

There is some early anecdotal signs from nurses I know in the Hampshire that people are beginning to act in the way they did during Spring/Summer 2020 in avoiding healthcare.

2 examples, in a GP Surgery in Southampton they had 62 no shows/cancellations for face to face appointments yesterday.

My wife who works on the treatment centre in Hospital said it was the quietest day they had had yesterday for months due to no-shows.

People are definitely scared.

Well that's the other part, the Gov't need to stress people should really keep their appointments.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

There is danger, life has danger.

Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?

How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?

Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?

We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.

Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.

But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?

You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.

Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.

No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.

Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.

Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.

Sandpit said:

Do you mean that governments have replaced evidence based policy making, with policy-based evidence making?

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?

I think that he is losing patience.

So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?

Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?

I suspect that he was looking at stats like this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/totalcancerdeathsintheukin2019and2020

There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.

The suicide stats need to be interpreted very, very carefully as there is context missing We can probably be reasonably confident that there wasn't a surge of suicides last year but we can't be confident there was a dramatic fall.

Suicides in the ONS stats are recorded by Date of Inquest not Date of Death. Inquests can take a long time to happen in normal times. The ONS states that baiscally the figures for a given year are actually the stats for the last 6 months fo the previous year (given time for inquests to happen) plus the first 6 months of the year of record. In Covid times they have been delayed much further. So the "fall" in suicides we see in 2020 is mostly coming from delayed inquests, not necessarily fewer suicides.

Now, there hasn't been a surge of backlogged inquests causing the number of massively spike this year so we can cautiously say that there was indeed an overall fall in suicides during lockdowns in 2020 but without someone doing so serious research on it to construct the "by date of death" data we don't have a clear picture.

Richard_Nabavi said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.

On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.

I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.

Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson denies he was imposing a lockdown by stealth.

"If you want to go to an event or a party, then the sensible thing to do, if that’s a priority is to get a test.

"We're not saying that we want to cancel stuff, we’re not locking stuff down"
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1471444441194020869

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.

On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.

I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.

Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.

But that's wrong.

Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.

Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.

On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.

I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.

Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.

But that's wrong.

Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.

Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.

Which as usual is you advocating that Other People die so that you can have "liberty".

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?

I think that he is losing patience.

So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?

Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?

I suspect that he was looking at stats like this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/totalcancerdeathsintheukin2019and2020

There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.

The suicide stats need to be interpreted very, very carefully as there is context missing We can probably be reasonably confident that there wasn't a surge of suicides last year but we can't be confident there was a dramatic fall.

Suicides in the ONS stats are recorded by Date of Inquest not Date of Death. Inquests can take a long time to happen in normal times. The ONS states that baiscally the figures for a given year are actually the stats for the last 6 months fo the previous year (given time for inquests to happen) plus the first 6 months of the year of record. In Covid times they have been delayed much further. So the "fall" in suicides we see in 2020 is mostly coming from delayed inquests, not necessarily fewer suicides.

Now, there hasn't been a surge of backlogged inquests causing the number of massively spike this year so we can cautiously say that there was indeed an overall fall in suicides during lockdowns in 2020 but without someone doing so serious research on it to construct the "by date of death" data we don't have a clear picture.

What we can say is that, contrary to the common trope, any reduction in deaths by Covid has to be offset by an increase in other deaths caused by isolation, suicide or lack of medical treatment does not currently have an evidential basis, no matter how intuitive it is (and I fully accept that I am as surprised by that as the average journalist).

Richard_Nabavi said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.

On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.

I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.

Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.

Philip_Thompson said:

But that's wrong.

Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.

Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

I think he's on a sticky wicket here as it's undeniable that cases of undiagnosed cancer had gone up through the pandemic and that will eventually be seen in the death figures of many of those patients.

On the other hand you can argue that if the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid people currently being treated will suffer as they will have their treatment curtailed... but I think he is wrong to so blithely dismiss those people whose loved ones have died from late and undiagnosed cancers during the pandemic.

I think you've misunderstood him. He's not saying that there hasn't been a serious knock-on effect from the pandemic on cancer and other care, he's saying that that wasn't caused by lockdowns, it was caused by the effect of the pandemic on the NHS (staff shortages, reduced capacity etc). The lockdowns weren't the cause of the problem - quite the opposite, they have helped reduce that effect by limiting the number of Covid cases at the peaks.

Again, Whitty was stating the bleedin' obvious. But it seems someone has to.

But that's wrong.

Social distancing in the NHS to "control the spread" of the virus is what's reduced capacity.

Had we let the virus rip then whoever died would have died and no longer be having any demands on the NHS and whoever survived would have an NHS that is working.

Which as usual is you advocating that Other People die so that you can have "liberty".

If I get it and die, I get it and die.

We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.

But yes, liberty is worth more than death.

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

NerysHughes said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

Yes, cancer patients may not get timely treatment if the hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid. It's one of the better arguments for restrictions and so forth.

There is some early anecdotal signs from nurses I know in the Hampshire that people are beginning to act in the way they did during Spring/Summer 2020 in avoiding healthcare.

2 examples, in a GP Surgery in Southampton they had 62 no shows/cancellations for face to face appointments yesterday.

My wife who works on the treatment centre in Hospital said it was the quietest day they had had yesterday for months due to no-shows.

People are definitely scared.

Well that's the other part, the Gov't need to stress people should really keep their appointments.

Why? As Omicron explodes people will in increasing numbers be cancelling because they are sick, someone they live with is sick, or because someone they were hugging drunkenly in the pub the other night is sick.

The staff shortages that increasing companies are reporting increasingly often is not because people are scared, its because they are sick or isolating.

The government needs to be making £££ available to support business and people. Labour failed to push for it, only the SNP and LibDems have been campaigning on this. We won't need "lockdown", its a red herring. Because if Omicron is as bad as it looks chunks of the economy will shut themselves down.

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

STOP FUCKING WHINGEING

Still on the hallucinogenics?

No. I’ve just had enough. I’m sitting in the sunlit garden next to my Antony Gormley statue in this billionaire’s garden in the Balearics, sipping an early cocktail, and then I come on here and it’s WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE Oh property ladder this Oh my pension that Oh my hamster’s got AIDS in his perineum and I am Scottish WHAT CAN I DO WHY WON’T THE GOVERNMENT HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH

Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Anecdote for you AZ-AZ-Moderna people, my dad had that combo and is still testing negative on the LFTs, my mum has 3x Pfizer got infected. They both had their boosters with a few days of each other as well as their other doses.

Is your mum showing only mild symptoms?

Yeah very mild according to my dad.

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Anecdote for you AZ-AZ-Moderna people, my dad had that combo and is still testing negative on the LFTs, my mum has 3x Pfizer got infected. They both had their boosters with a few days of each other as well as their other doses.

Is your mum showing only mild symptoms?

Yeah very mild according to my dad.

Philip_Thompson said:

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Farooq said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

There is danger, life has danger.

Lets spin the question on its head. Lets say this wave is allowed to rip through the population. What is the realistic worst case scenario? Don't just say "the NHS might collapse", how many excess deaths are we talking about caused by the NHS collapsing? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Two million?

How much QALY are we talking about? Lets quantify it. How does that compare to natural deaths that would occur anyway?

Then lockdown restrictions and screwing over the livelihoods of people like Miss Cyclefree Jr and millions more like her. How much damage is that? How much pain and suffering is that causing?

We've triply-vaccinated the vulnerable already. Either the vaccines work, or they don't. Hundreds of thousands die every single year anyway. Since the virus started close to a million have died from natural causes, the last years of which have been messed around with by lockdown. Those final years are never going to be brought back, the education disrupted, the businesses disrupted, none of that is coming back either.

Let die whoever dies. Let live whoever lives.

But you are saying that as an absolute, which is barmy. Suppose it were to turn out that Omicron has a nasty kick to it, not yet evident because it only shows up a few weeks after infection, which has the effect of making it very dangerous to children. Are you seriously suggesting that, as an absolute thing, irrespective of the avoidable death of thousands of children, we should just 'Let die whoever dies'?

You are just being bonkers. No sane person can be absolute about this, it all depends on the degree of danger.

Yes I am absolutely 100% saying that. Unequivocally and unabashedly.

No matter the danger. People die, get over it already. We fucked over 3 academic years of education. We have destroyed two years of business. For 67 million people we've had two years of damage.

Even if you believe the badly-calculated claim that the average 'death' had 10 years life expectancy left (I don't) two years lost for 67 million people is 134 million years of damage. We'd have had to have 13 million excess deaths to make up for that and its nowhere close to that.

Pre-vaccinations restrictions were borderline justifiable to me, but if I'd known they'd have dragged on for two years I'd have said they were not justifiable at all. Post-vaccinations it is madness. The damage of restrictions is worse than a fraction of 1% of people dying.

Idiot child.
The idea that the detriments to education over the last two years is the same as living two years less is risible.

You're right, two years of lost education that will affect you for the rest of your life is worse than two years less life with dementia and cancer and a frail and decrepit body.

Idiot child.
Two years' damaged education is not two years' lost education. Get a grip.

You're the idiot.

For primary children especially mingling with other kids and having life experiences is absolutely 100% critical.

In normal circumstances the courts would fine people who took a few days off school because of the paramount importance of education. But you think screwing people around for two years won't have any damage that could potentially afflict them for their entire lives as a result?

Post-vaccinations, all for a virus that even pre-vaccines 99% of people survived? You are the one who needs to get a grip.

All context and sanity has been lost for the sake of "controlling" a virus that 99% of people will live through anyway.

Yet again, you think that because I've pointed out your stupid misuse of stats, that I'm peddling a different point of view. You do this over and over again, and you never learn

You gave a figure of "134 million years of damage", which you explicitly derived from multiplying P=67M by t=2y.
This, you compared with deaths.

Damaged education isn't the same as death. That doesn't make me pro lockdown, or pro death, or anything.
It makes me anti stupid. Your "134 million years of damage" is preposterous.

Damaged education isn't the same as death, its worse.

OldKingCole said:

Butler's just dropped a regulation catch off Labuschagne!

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?

I think that he is losing patience.

So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?

Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?

I suspect that he was looking at stats like this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/totalcancerdeathsintheukin2019and2020

There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.

SandyRentool said:

Anecdote:

One of our London offices held a staff Christmas party on Friday. Looks like it was a super spreader event.

JBriskin3 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bank of England raises base rate

Sanity Prevails!

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

F1: Mercedes drop their appeal of the rejection of their protest, a few hours before the FIA Gala.

https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1471419870680125441

Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.

No, I think they had little option but to take the high road.
Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

STOP FUCKING WHINGEING

Still on the hallucinogenics?

No. I’ve just had enough. I’m sitting in the sunlit garden next to my Antony Gormley statue in this billionaire’s garden in the Balearics, sipping an early cocktail, and then I come on here and it’s WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE Oh property ladder this Oh my pension that Oh my hamster’s got AIDS in his perineum and I am Scottish WHAT CAN I DO WHY WON’T THE GOVERNMENT HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH

Enough. Get up off your pimply bottoms, go to the drinks cabinet, pour yourself a stiff one, sit down, sip your drink, then get up again, go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself a second, and then finally sit down and think about everything and get it all in perspective and then stand up again and go to the drinks cabinet and pour yourself the entire bottle

I've just been swimming. Omicron didn't stop me. It's the sort of man I am. Live is for living not cowering away under the duvet.

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
36m
Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.

===

As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.

What's the point? Supposedly with its doubling rate we'll have all had it by Christmas Day.

So what's the point in locking down in January, once we've all had it? And if we haven't all had it, then clearly its not doubling as claimed.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?

Sorry but Whitty is talking bollocks. The official figures from the NHS show that waiting times for cancer diagnosis and treatment have increased massively, as have treatments for just about everything else - a lot of it due to people being unable to see their GPs during lockdowns.

I have a lot of time for Whitty generally but on this he is clearly losing the plot.

Philip_Thompson said:

Bank of England raises base rate

NickPalmer said:

rottenborough said:

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
36m
Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.

===

As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.

Yes. But also note that he says each 6 months will be better than the last and polyvalent vaccines that cover almost every conceivable variant are in view (though perhaps 18 months off) so we aren't facing the same cycle forever. I suspect each lockdown will be less stringent than its predecessor.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mortimer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
36m
Important. Whitty warns further restrictions may be needed dependent on data due between Xmas/NY.

===

As I have posted before, it's lockdown on 3rd Jan. Brace.

What's the point? Supposedly with its doubling rate we'll have all had it by Christmas Day.

So what's the point in locking down in January, once we've all had it? And if we haven't all had it, then clearly its not doubling as claimed.

We are already in a de facto lockdown as people's behaviour reacts to Whitty and his colleagues

You may be. But I can still:

1) run my business
2) see friends
3) have a pint

You see the difference? Restrictions aren't necessary.

Of course you can but you may soon be on your own

IshmaelZ said:

DavidL said:

IshmaelZ said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Very strong rebuke from Chris Whitty to people who say Covid lockdowns have somehow set back cancer or other care - common trope in right-wing press. Whitty says they have "no understanding of health", and that the claim is a "complete inversion of reality". https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1471437931118219264/photo/1

Did Whitty really say common trope in right wing press ?

I think that he is losing patience.

So - why are there documented cases of people who missed early cancer diagnosis who have died who probably shouldn't have?

Unless he is arguing some technical point that it wasn't the actual lockdown it was people's reluctance to come forward even though the GP was available and so was the hospital?

I suspect that he was looking at stats like this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/totalcancerdeathsintheukin2019and2020

There is no evidence at all that more people are dying of cancer yet. Its a bit like the statistics we were discussing yesterday that showed that all of the isolation and depression of lockdown seems to have reduced suicides, not increased them.

That's that correlation/causation argument put to bed, then

What we have is reasonable assumptions and anecdotes that are not supported by the evidence. Policy should be decided on the evidence.

Reasonable assumptions and anecdotes *are* evidence, and if it's reasonable to infer that more cancer deaths are likely it seems kinder to take action immediately than to say "no evidence" meaning, really, "no spreadsheets (because they haven't died yet)."

It was your "seems to have reduced suicides" I was taking issue with. The precautionary approach is to assume that is not true. And anyway surely you make a living from sending people to Barlinnie on the basis of anecdotes (A says B had a gun) and assumptions (I am asking you to infer that B shot C with it)?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Bank Rate up from 0.1% to 0.25% on an 8 to 1 vote

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

F1: Mercedes drop their appeal of the rejection of their protest, a few hours before the FIA Gala.

https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1471419870680125441

Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.

No, I think they had little option but to take the high road.
Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.

Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.

In 30 or 40 years’ time, I’ll be able to tell my young grandkids that I was there, on that fateful evening in Abu Dhabi…

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

F1: Mercedes drop their appeal of the rejection of their protest, a few hours before the FIA Gala.

https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1471419870680125441

Sounds like some sort of deal done behind the scenes again, really not good for the sport.

No, I think they had little option but to take the high road.
Carrying on with the action would have been a disaster for them, win or lose.

Definitely. It would have looked OTT and any 'win' wouldn't have been. They played it spot on. Consensus that it was unfair is established. Sport is littered with such. It's a perverse part of the attraction in a sense. F1 21 will be talked about for years.

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If I get it and die, I get it and die.

We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.

But yes, liberty is worth more than death.

"Idiot", "moron" and no doubt more in other posts from you that I can't be bothered to read - can't you discuss the issue as though you weren't drunk? You come across like George Galloway on speed.

NickPalmer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If I get it and die, I get it and die.

We're all going to get it you bleeding idiot. Chris Whitty said that six months ago, so I'm not saying anything Chris Whitty hasn't already said. But I forget you're the moron who expect an "exit" from Covid.

But yes, liberty is worth more than death.

"Idiot", "moron" and no doubt more in other posts from you that I can't be bothered to read - can't you discuss the issue as though you weren't drunk? You come across like George Galloway on speed.