Jump to content

Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I am, however, more than happy to look at any evidence you have that contradicts that and proves that more people died as a direct result of Government policy.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-britain-elderly/

 

"Policies designed to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed pushed a greater burden onto care homes. With hospitals given priority by the government, care homes struggled to get access to tests and protective equipment. The elderly were also put at potentially greater risk by measures to admit only the sickest for hospital treatment and to clear out as many non-acute patients as possible from wards."

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

"Mass gatherings that commonly place little observation of social isolation rules" aren't a particularly good thing, no. 

What do you think the government could have done better to prevent them?

Good, we're making progress. Presumably these mass gatherings without observation of social distancing aren't a good thing because they will greatly accelerate the spread of the virus and thus undo all the work that had been done to contain it during the lockdown. Which was the point I made.

What could the government have done better to prevent these mass gatherings? Not a lot when people decide to behave like morons en-masse. The government had made it quite clear what the rules were, but there are always going to be elements of society who will do the complete opposite for their own selfish and stupid reasons. The Police could have been far more active though, especially the Met under the useless Cressida Dick and Sadiq Khan. The sight of the police "giving the knee", running away and generally acting like pussies has been sickening and did little to deter further mass breaches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-britain-elderly/

 

"Policies designed to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed pushed a greater burden onto care homes. With hospitals given priority by the government, care homes struggled to get access to tests and protective equipment. The elderly were also put at potentially greater risk by measures to admit only the sickest for hospital treatment and to clear out as many non-acute patients as possible from wards."

Nothing in there that disputes my point that not one person was denied the treatment they needed - in fact it states that the sickest patients were admitted for hospital treatment.

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Nothing in there that disputes my point that not one person was denied the treatment they needed - in fact it states that the sickest patients were admitted for hospital treatment.

ONLY the sickest patients, so if you weren't in that category you were denied treatment, plus all non-acute patients were 'moved out', therefore again being denied treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news lads. Boris Johnson has given you permission to blame the staff at care homes themselves for not following the regulations.

So thats another scapegoat you can add to the list of the irresponsible public, Sadiq Khan, Steven Kinnock, the BLM movement and Steve Coogan.

Meanwhile there was nothing the actual helpless government could have done differently at all. I mean, if you think about it, they're, like, you know, the real victims here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

ONLY the sickest patients, so if you weren't in that category you were denied treatment, plus all non-acute patients were 'moved out', therefore again being denied treatment.

Which patients are the ones that die, the 'sickest' or patients not in that category?

Again, nobody was denied treatment that caused them to die - the claim made earlier was that Government Policy caused people to die.  Nobody has posted any evidence of this claim yet....

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how headlines in isolation on news web pages can mislead, I suspect deliberately and to an agenda. Under a photo of two people wearing fully protective clothing and moving a coffin into a vehicle, is the headline "Country struggles as Covid surges". Many will make the wrong assumption that they are referring to this country, but in fact, it is Columbia being referred to. How simple would it have been for the headline to have read "Columbia struggles as Covid surges"? But that wouldn't suit the agenda, either to misinform those who only read the headline, or to act as clickbait for the others. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Which patients are the ones that die, the 'sickest' or patients not in that category?

Again, nobody was denied treatment that caused them to die - the claim made earlier was that Government Policy caused people to die.  Nobody has posted any evidence of this claim yet....

What about cancer patients denied treatment so as to "protect the NHS" ?

https://mobile.twitter.com/alderton_liz/status/1246873424510713857

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I am, however, more than happy to look at any evidence you have that contradicts that and proves that more people died as a direct result of Government policy.

I don't really think you are. Every time something gets mentioned you argue inanely against it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Great news lads. Boris Johnson has given you permission to blame the staff at care homes themselves for not following the regulations.

So thats another scapegoat you can add to the list of the irresponsible public, Sadiq Khan, Steven Kinnock, the BLM movement and Steve Coogan.

Meanwhile there was nothing the actual helpless government could have done differently at all. I mean, if you think about it, they're, like, you know, the real victims here.

This is a decent article which suggests some care homes were spared the worst precisely by defying government procedures. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/janice-turner-on-coronavirus-in-care-homes-and-the-end-of-lockdown-qv9pz9z8w

 

In the meantime the cultist sheep have a new scapegoat.

Edited by shurlock
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

What about cancer patients denied treatment so as to "protect the NHS" ?

https://mobile.twitter.com/alderton_liz/status/1246873424510713857

 

NHS England advice on maintaining cancer treatment dated 30th March 2020.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/C0119-_Maintaining-cancer-services-_-letter-to-trusts.pdf

Quote

In short, given the COVID situation is likely to persist for some time, rather than deferring cancer care, continuing to provide it through ringfenced facilities and reconfigured care pathways is generally more appropriate. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

I don't really think you are. Every time something gets mentioned you argue inanely against it. 

The claim was quite clear that Government policies caused people to die.

Still not had anything posted that clarifies which government policy caused the deaths.  Feel free to post something constructive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shurlock said:

This is a decent article which suggests some care homes were spared the worst precisely by defying government procedures. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/janice-turner-on-coronavirus-in-care-homes-and-the-end-of-lockdown-qv9pz9z8w

 

In the meantime the cultist sheep have a new scapegoat.

Heard a great article on Radio 4, this care home have had no covid cases and all because the deputy care manager had a boyfriend who worked in Spain. They chatted every day on the phone and she got a sense of what was coming, so using google she devised and enacted a very effective plan.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably being dense about this but we've got more excess deaths for the size of our population than virtually all other developed nations - is that not the fault of the government or were we just unlucky?  It seems particularly unlucky given we were supposed to be behind Italy, Spain and most of the other European countries and had more notice and time to prepare than they had.  Obviously there are structural issues that may make comparison between countries difficult and you can chuck in long standing funding issues not necessarily entirely the fault of this government but surely they must be to blame for an awful lot of our "bad luck".  There were times during this crisis where they looked in complete chaos and not a clue amongst them.  I'll give the Chancellor some credit though - he at least seemed to have an idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The claim was quite clear that Government policies caused people to die.

Still not had anything posted that clarifies which government policy caused the deaths.  Feel free to post something constructive.

Locking down the economy so drastically will cause people to die. You don’t need to prove that to the lefties, they’ve been telling us for years that poverty, unemployment & recessions kill people. 

Shutting down the nhs will kill people as early diagnosis has been proven to to save people’s lives.

Chucking old folks out to free up beds undoubtedly killed people, but that policy was a result of flawed modelling from scientists and a panic that the NHS would not cope. 

The key questions is what drove government policy and would another government have acted differently. As a Labour government would have been following the same advice, dealing with the same NHS ,the same PHE, and seem to have wanted a harder lockdown or at least a similar one.  I fail to see how it would have made much difference either way. When it comes to public health, they’re both pretty much the same despite pretending they’re not. 

 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I'm probably being dense about this but we've got more excess deaths for the size of our population than virtually all other developed nations - is that not the fault of the government or were we just unlucky?  It seems particularly unlucky given we were supposed to be behind Italy, Spain and most of the other European countries and had more notice and time to prepare than they had.  Obviously there are structural issues that may make comparison between countries difficult and you can chuck in long standing funding issues not necessarily entirely the fault of this government but surely they must be to blame for an awful lot of our "bad luck".  There were times during this crisis where they looked in complete chaos and not a clue amongst them.  I'll give the Chancellor some credit though - he at least seemed to have an idea. 

Doesn't that stem back to the original decision of the Government though - if they had decided to lock down the entire country from Day 1, not let anyone in or anyone out (like North Korea), then yes, you could claim 'unlucky'.  We didn't, we chose to allow the virus to spread - and that is still the current goal as far as I'm aware - but control it to the point that the health service does not become over run.

You also need to add in the fact that the vast majority of cases that we have had in England - and by extrapolation the largest number of deaths - have been in London.  There aren't many other countries that have a similar sized 'super city' and those that do, even less can be considered an 'international hub' for travelling.  By it's very nature, London attracts more people from more countries every day than most other countries, which is why the virus spread so quickly.  

Yes, we had more time to prepare as you mention, but prepare for what?  You are talking about deaths from a virus that has no known cure.  The preparation was spent ensuring that medical facilities were available for everyone that needed them - there has been nothing to say this was not succesful and at no point did the NHS become overwhelmed to deny people the treatment they needed.  Not sure what else could have been prepared for, even with the benefit of hindsight.

What 'bad luck' would you like to lay blame for at the Government's door?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that our PM went round hospital wards shaking hands with Covid patients, then ended up catching it says it all really.

They have to take credit for not having the NHS overwhelmed, but it wasn't taken seriously enough at the start and we've been playing catch up ever since. As the PM of New Zealand said, when disease is spreading at an exponential rate, time is everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Locking down the economy so drastically will cause people to die. You don’t need to prove that to the lefties, they’ve been telling us for years that poverty, unemployment & recessions kill people. 

Shutting down the nhs will kill people as early diagnosis has been proven to to save people’s lives.

Chucking old folks out to free up beds undoubtedly killed people, but that policy was a result of flawed modelling from scientists and a panic that the NHS would not cope. 

The key questions is what drove government policy and would another government have acted differently. As a Labour government would have been following the same advice, dealing with the same NHS ,the same PHE, and seem to have wanted a harder lockdown or at least a similar one.  I fail to see how it would have made much difference either way. When it comes to public health, they’re both pretty much the same despite pretending they’re not. 

 

Which is what I stated in my first reply on this topic.  I'm not convinced that anyone Governing the UK at the time this started would have done anything drastically different.  If we had taken the same gambe as Brazil and Sweden and had no lockdown who knows how many people would have died - I'm not convinced it would have been drastically bigger than what we have seen to date and what we are likely to see once the virus is finally under control with a vaccine.

I get what you are saying about locking down the economy will cause people to die - however, that is based on poverty, so whilst it was unavoidable that it would happen (imagine the uproar if lockdown didn't go ahead!!!), the 'poverty' element has been largely mitigated by the furlough scheme with people maintaining broadly similar incomes, I'm sure there will be many, many individual examples of hardship but I'm viewing this on a macro rather than micro level.  We will have to wait and see what the impending recession will bring to the table though...

Again, I get your point about shutting down the NHS and early diagnosis, but as linked to above, NHS England specifically stated treatment should carry on and that cancer care should not be deferred - whilst I have only looked for articles regarding cancer care, my assumption is that the advice would have been the same for a whole cornucopia of illnesses!

Again, chucking old people out (bed blockers) to free up space in the NHS, will largely come down to localised clinical assessments - I haven't seen a Government policy that stated this should happen - and should have only affected the 'least ill' patients.  Admittedly the 'science' behind this decision on the face of it seems flawed, however, the risk of sending people home / away from hospitals that were predicted to become overwhelmed by Covid patients certainly seems a lot lower than keeping them in situ where they were highly likely to be exposed to the virus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Doesn't that stem back to the original decision of the Government though - if they had decided to lock down the entire country from Day 1, not let anyone in or anyone out (like North Korea), then yes, you could claim 'unlucky'.  We didn't, we chose to allow the virus to spread - and that is still the current goal as far as I'm aware - but control it to the point that the health service does not become over run.

You also need to add in the fact that the vast majority of cases that we have had in England - and by extrapolation the largest number of deaths - have been in London.  There aren't many other countries that have a similar sized 'super city' and those that do, even less can be considered an 'international hub' for travelling.  By it's very nature, London attracts more people from more countries every day than most other countries, which is why the virus spread so quickly.  

Yes, we had more time to prepare as you mention, but prepare for what?  You are talking about deaths from a virus that has no known cure.  The preparation was spent ensuring that medical facilities were available for everyone that needed them - there has been nothing to say this was not succesful and at no point did the NHS become overwhelmed to deny people the treatment they needed.  Not sure what else could have been prepared for, even with the benefit of hindsight.

What 'bad luck' would you like to lay blame for at the Government's door?

Prepare to get the virus under control so that track and trace can work at manageable levels and prevent unnecessary deaths like, I dunno, virtually every other European country and China.  Seems if the plan was to allow a manageable spread then we did a bloody sight worse than everyone else did and took us longer than everyone else too.  I'm not claiming unlucky by the way - I'm claiming total shambles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aintforever said:

The fact that our PM went round hospital wards shaking hands with Covid patients, then ended up catching it says it all really.

They have to take credit for not having the NHS overwhelmed, but it wasn't taken seriously enough at the start and we've been playing catch up ever since. As the PM of New Zealand said, when disease is spreading at an exponential rate, time is everything.

Not sure what your 'end goal' is supposed to look like when you state it wasn't taken seriously enough at the start.  I'm guessing you feel that we could have locked the country down and completely eradicated the virus?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Nothing in there that disputes my point that not one person was denied the treatment they needed - in fact it states that the sickest patients were admitted for hospital treatment.

A lot of people were treated badly during the lockdown by the NHS, my father in law was discharged from hospital when he should have been kept in. We were left struggling at home looking after a very sick person and trying to access the care services he needed was a horrendous battle, our GP refused to visit because of corona, even though he had tested negative.  She even refused to visit to certify his death until we said we were making a complaint, then she came in full hazard suit to feel his pulse. This next part of the story is disgusting, my FiL had a defib implant which should have been switched off because he was dying and in their rush to discharge him they didn't. We hit brick wall after brick wall trying to get someone out to switch it off, we were asked to drive him 25 miles to a hospital car park where someone 'may' be able to help. He died with it in and it went off, he was denied a dignified death.

Two of our good friends had their cancer treatment stopped, one mid course and one at the beginning of her treatment, because the cancer unit had no way of testing patients to see who had covid and who didn't. This ring fencing facilities and reconfigured pathways is rhetoric, for this you need hot and cold facilities but without the testing you don't know who should be accessing what facility and it takes time to set up these facilities and new pathways. I think the lack of a proper testing strategy is at the heart of most of the issues with the pandemic.

There was a period when the NHS could not think of anything other than coronavirus and that was because of lack of government planning and a Tory non-urgent attitude. My experience, from working in a hospital and having a sick father in law is that non frontline services simply closed the doors and a lot of people were let down. Having witnessed it and the level of entitlement of some of the staff I work with, I found it difficult to clap on a Thursday night. I know 2020 it littered with tons of great NHS stories but there will be a equal amount of bad stories and I hope there will be an enquiry one day and a call for evidence.

Edited by Fan The Flames
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

Prepare to get the virus under control so that track and trace can work at manageable levels and prevent unnecessary deaths like, I dunno, virtually every other European country and China.  Seems if the plan was to allow a manageable spread then we did a bloody sight worse than everyone else did and took us longer than everyone else too.  I'm not claiming unlucky by the way - I'm claiming total shambles.

Track and trace has already proved to be completely unreliable due to the complete morons that live in this country and would rather give false details than ensure public health is protected - what is the current figure, is it something like 25% of all positive tests cannot be contacted because they gave incorrect information, how many more people can therefore not be contacted as a result?  Then you have the same thing in the pubs this weekend when they opened.  For the minority of pubs that do insist on contact details being given, most of the information they are collecting is complete nonsense with people giving made up names and numbers.

How could the Government have prepared to get the virus under control when it has no known medication that will control it?  The only thing that can be done is to treat the symptoms when they become severe enough to need treating.  Not sure how else you can control the spread other than lock everyone up - which we did!

Finally, if you honestly believe that China prevented unnecessary deaths, you need to give your head a wobble pal!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not sure what your 'end goal' is supposed to look like when you state it wasn't taken seriously enough at the start.  I'm guessing you feel that we could have locked the country down and completely eradicated the virus?

I think if we had locked down earlier and harder many lives could have been saved. If you look at the effect lockdown had on the curve, move that point forward a couple of weeks and the total deaths would be much less.

If you remember at the start much of Europe thought we were mad for not locking down sooner, the PM quoted behavioural science as a reason for not locking down (or doing it at the right time, saying the public wouldn't stick to it), I think he got that wrong. The herd immunity thing they were going on about at the start was clearly wrong as well. Wether it was their scientific advice that was wrong or the government remains to be seen, I guess we will find out after the inevitable inquiry.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Track and trace has already proved to be completely unreliable due to the complete morons that live in this country and would rather give false details than ensure public health is protected - what is the current figure, is it something like 25% of all positive tests cannot be contacted because they gave incorrect information, how many more people can therefore not be contacted as a result?  Then you have the same thing in the pubs this weekend when they opened.  For the minority of pubs that do insist on contact details being given, most of the information they are collecting is complete nonsense with people giving made up names and numbers.

How could the Government have prepared to get the virus under control when it has no known medication that will control it?  The only thing that can be done is to treat the symptoms when they become severe enough to need treating.  Not sure how else you can control the spread other than lock everyone up - which we did!

Finally, if you honestly believe that China prevented unnecessary deaths, you need to give your head a wobble pal!

 

OK here's a question for you:  Why exactly do you think we've suffered more excess deaths?  Obviously not the governments fault in your opinion, in fact, it seems to be anything but that.  So they're completely blameless, is that it?  Or are you arguing that we've fared no worse than anyone else?  I've got a job to do pal and I can't be arsed to subscribe (busy enough as it is) so I won't be replying so take your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I think if we had locked down earlier and harder many lives could have been saved. If you look at the effect lockdown had on the curve, move that point forward a couple of weeks and the total deaths would be much less.

If you remember at the start much of Europe thought we were mad for not locking down sooner, the PM quoted behavioural science as a reason for not locking down (or doing it at the right time, saying the public wouldn't stick to it), I think he got that wrong. The herd immunity thing they were going on about at the start was clearly wrong as well. Wether it was their scientific advice that was wrong or the government remains to be seen, I guess we will find out after the inevitable inquiry.

 

 

Undoubtedly.  Locking down earlier and harder would have saved many more lives.  I've never argued it wouldn't.  The Government had a balancing act to carry out, allow the virus to spread whilst keeping the NHS under control versus locking down the economy and causing an economic meltdown.

However, that only works whilst you remain locked down.  Once you re-open the economy and get life moving again, the virus re-appears as there is no known cure or vaccine at this point in time.  Look at Melbourne for a prime example of this, locked down nice and early and contained the virus, very good.  Re-opened, having another 'spike' so locking down for a further six weeks.  What is the economic cost of that?

Your statement about behavioural science, I don't believe the PM was wrong - remember the protest marches, packed beaches, packed parks?  All those happened because people couldn't manage to sit on their arses and be paid for it!  Do you think that locking down harder and for longer would have seen more or less of these incidents?  Members of the Government and its own advisors couldn't follow the advice on numerous occassions but you expect the 'average' man on the street to be different?

With regards to herd immunity, not sure why you think that is wrong.  It was stated from the very beginning that herd immunity needed around 60-70% of the population to have been infected and produce antibodies before it came in to play.  We haven't reached a point where that many people have been infected so herd immunity hasn't happened yet.  That doesn't make it 'clearly wrong' it just means we will take more time to reach the point where enough people have had the virus (ironically, if we hadn't locked down at all we would reach that point a lot sooner) - it could of course become irrelevant if a vaccine is developed and in place before that happens, but the theory behind the two is exactly the same and not 'clearly wrong'.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

OK here's a question for you:  Why exactly do you think we've suffered more excess deaths?  Obviously not the governments fault in your opinion, in fact, it seems to be anything but that.  So they're completely blameless, is that it?  Or are you arguing that we've fared no worse than anyone else?  I've got a job to do pal and I can't be arsed to subscribe (busy enough as it is) so I won't be replying so take your time.

Because we've had more infections - I thought that was clear from my previous post.

Yes, lots of countries locked down sooner than us and had less infections.  Those countries are now re-opening and moving on with life and guess what, they are experiencing a rise in infections once more, which will inevitably lead to more deaths.  Don't worry, most countries will catch up soon enough, especially those with a large BAME population for whom, sadly, this virus seems to be far more leathal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Undoubtedly.  Locking down earlier and harder would have saved many more lives.  I've never argued it wouldn't.  The Government had a balancing act to carry out, allow the virus to spread whilst keeping the NHS under control versus locking down the economy and causing an economic meltdown.

However, that only works whilst you remain locked down.  Once you re-open the economy and get life moving again, the virus re-appears as there is no known cure or vaccine at this point in time.  Look at Melbourne for a prime example of this, locked down nice and early and contained the virus, very good.  Re-opened, having another 'spike' so locking down for a further six weeks.  What is the economic cost of that?

Your statement about behavioural science, I don't believe the PM was wrong - remember the protest marches, packed beaches, packed parks?  All those happened because people couldn't manage to sit on their arses and be paid for it!  Do you think that locking down harder and for longer would have seen more or less of these incidents?  Members of the Government and its own advisors couldn't follow the advice on numerous occassions but you expect the 'average' man on the street to be different?

With regards to herd immunity, not sure why you think that is wrong.  It was stated from the very beginning that herd immunity needed around 60-70% of the population to have been infected and produce antibodies before it came in to play.  We haven't reached a point where that many people have been infected so herd immunity hasn't happened yet.  That doesn't make it 'clearly wrong' it just means we will take more time to reach the point where enough people have had the virus (ironically, if we hadn't locked down at all we would reach that point a lot sooner) - it could of course become irrelevant if a vaccine is developed and in place before that happens, but the theory behind the two is exactly the same and not 'clearly wrong'.

The point of an early lockdown is that you reduce the spread when it is spreading exponentially, the curve doesn't get as high meaning you can come out of lockdown earlier - less deaths and less damage to the economy. It's the exponential factor that is vital, infections shoot up quickly, getting them down takes longer and is expensive.

Not sure what your point about Melbourne is - we will have spikes after lockdown just like them, having more deaths at the start won't stop that.

Talking about herd immunity at the stage they did was clearly wrong, that's why they shut up about it pretty quick. In the long term it will probably happen but having it as a policy at that stage of a pandemic was nuts, our health system couldn't cope with just letting it spread without checks before we even have a treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Doesn't that stem back to the original decision of the Government though - if they had decided to lock down the entire country from Day 1, not let anyone in or anyone out (like North Korea), then yes, you could claim 'unlucky'.  We didn't, we chose to allow the virus to spread - and that is still the current goal as far as I'm aware - but control it to the point that the health service does not become over run.

I don't know how you have come to this conclusion. If the policy is to allow the virus to spread why wasn't lockdown finished a lot earlier? That would have allowed the virus to spread and the NHS could have coped. It had all those Nightingale hospitals which weren't being used.   

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You also need to add in the fact that the vast majority of cases that we have had in England - and by extrapolation the largest number of deaths - have been in London.  There aren't many other countries that have a similar sized 'super city' and those that do, even less can be considered an 'international hub' for travelling.  By it's very nature, London attracts more people from more countries every day than most other countries, which is why the virus spread so quickly.  

Tokyo has a  population 3 times greater than London.  Japan has suffered 8 deaths per 1 million population. UK 657 per million. Can you explain ?

You were a lot funnier when you posted as Heiselberg and pretended to have winning bets all the time. Playing this role of village idiot doesn't really suit you. How is the weather in Glasgow?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the 3rd highest total in the world, behind the US and Brazil, both of which have rather bonkers leaders.

When you look at Japan and South Korea with approximately 1000 deaths from 125 million and 300 deaths from 60 million respectively, the UK record is appalling.

The "world-beating" app was a total farce and now Boris has started his blame game by trying point the finger at the care homes.

What Labour would have done is irrelevant, this lot are in power and buck stops with them. 

Edited by ecuk268
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

I don't know how you have come to this conclusion. If the policy is to allow the virus to spread why wasn't lockdown finished a lot earlier? That would have allowed the virus to spread and the NHS could have coped. It had all those Nightingale hospitals which weren't being used.   

Tokyo has a  population 3 times greater than London.  Japan has suffered 8 deaths per 1 million population. UK 657 per million. Can you explain ?

You were a lot funnier when you posted as Heiselberg and pretended to have winning bets all the time. Playing this role of village idiot doesn't really suit you. How is the weather in Glasgow?

 

 

If we didn't want the virus to spread, nobody would have mentioned 'herd immunity'.  If we wanted to isolate the virus we would have shut down every airport and seaport at the end of January.  Numerous press conferences during the early days mentioned that the virus was already 'here' and that there was nothing we could do to eradicate that so we needed to allow it to spread in a controlled manner.  It's not a conclusion I came to it is information that was given during the early days of the virus.  The Government then introduced its 'five tests' for determining when lockdown could be lifted.

Japan has a massively different culture to the UK, who knew that well behaved people could protect each other, whilst morons can't.

I went to Glasgow once, stayed in the hotel that the bin truck ran into - even had a drink or two at the table in the corner of the 'conservatory' that it smashed up.  Visited Ibrox, Celtic Park and Firhill Stadium the following day before the flight home.  Other than that you are barking up the wrong tree.  Woof.

Edited by Weston Super Saint
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A small island is easier to shut down than a large one. Plus Japan has a massively different culture to the UK, who knew that well behaved people could protect each other, whilst morons can't.

 

Japan. A small island!! You are priceless. :lol:

Japan's total area is 50% larger than the UK. Its largest island, Honshu is 10% larger than Britain.

Why don't you try to base your opinions on facts? You then wouldn't look so much like a village idiot.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tamesaint
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Japan. A small island!! You are priceless. :lol:

Japan's total are is 50% larger than the UK. Its largest island, Honshu is 10% larger than Britain.

Why don't you try to base your opinions on facts? You then wouldn't look so much like a village idiot.

 

Japan also has a higher population density and a higher proportion of over 65s.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ecuk268
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

Japan. A small island!! You are priceless. :lol:

Japan's total area is 50% larger than the UK. Its largest island, Honshu is 10% larger than Britain.

Why don't you try to base your opinions on facts? You then wouldn't look so much like a village idiot.

 

 

 

 

yep, the main difference I can see is that the Japan have a polite society that does not involve hugging kissing when they meet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t Japan have a far far milder lockdown than us? 

According to the BBC they kept their borders open far longer than other countries, only tested 0.27% of the population, didn’t legislate to close non essential shops . In fact used a far limited, yet more targeted approach, as compared to our panicked lockdown. 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered a - non-enforceable - state of emergency on 7 April, asking people to stay at home "if possible".

Can you imagine the bed wetting had Boris done the same in April. 
 

 

 

 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Didn’t Japan have a far far milder lockdown than us? 

According to the BBC they kept their borders open far longer than other countries, only tested 0.27% of the population, didn’t legislate to close non essential shops . In fact used a far limited, yet more targeted approach, as compared to our panicked lockdown. 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered a - non-enforceable - state of emergency on 7 April, asking people to stay at home "if possible".

Can you imagine the bed wetting had Boris done the same in April. 
 

Yes, Boris did the right thing. 

Ended up with total deaths 46 times higher than Japan despite them having twice our population.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, OldNick said:

yep, the main difference I can see is that the Japan have a polite society that does not involve hugging kissing when they meet. 

Cultural factors cut both ways - in some aspects, they reduce risk; in others, they increase risk. Japan’s certainly a polite society but it’s also one where you’re expected to turn up to work and show your face (figuratively). I know people there who have felt social pressure to take public transport and go into the office, even they could quite easily work from home.

 

Widespread mask-wearing arguably plays a big role on which note...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/refusal-to-wear-mask-should-be-as-taboo-as-drink-driving-says-royal-society-chief

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, shurlock said:

Cultural factors cut both ways - in some aspects, they reduce risk; in others, they increase risk. Japan’s certainly a polite society but it’s also one where you’re expected to turn up to work and show your face (figuratively). I know people there who have felt social pressure to take public transport and go into the office, even they could quite easily work from home.

 

Widespread mask-wearing arguably plays a big role on which note...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/refusal-to-wear-mask-should-be-as-taboo-as-drink-driving-says-royal-society-chief

They also had a leader who knew what he was doing, as opposed to Boris, who said at the start of the outbreak:

“I’m shaking hands continuously. I was at a hospital the other night where I think there were actually a few coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you’ll be pleased to know. I continue to shake hands."
“I want to stress that for the vast majority of the people of this country, we should be going about our business as usual.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Didn’t Japan have a far far milder lockdown than us? 

According to the BBC they kept their borders open far longer than other countries, only tested 0.27% of the population, didn’t legislate to close non essential shops . In fact used a far limited, yet more targeted approach, as compared to our panicked lockdown. 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered a - non-enforceable - state of emergency on 7 April, asking people to stay at home "if possible".

Can you imagine the bed wetting had Boris done the same in April. 
 

 

 

 

Comparing UK and Japan's lockdown is like comparing apples to oranges. You can only compare the impact of the lockdown to what would have happened if the UK hadn't locked down at the time it did.

The big difference between the UK and Japan is that the rate and level of infection got out of control in the UK, making a harder lockdown far more necessary. By contrast, it was initially better contained in Japan (individual prefectures like Hokkaido -population 5.3 million- were declaring states of emergency in February) giving the government greater scope to adopt light-touch measures later on. That the level and rate of infection was allowed to increase as much as it did in the UK is the elephant in the room and I'd happily wager that poor policy played a role in it.

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

Yes, Boris did the right thing. 

Ended up with total deaths 46 times higher than Japan despite them having twice our population.

I’ve been the one arguing our lockdown was disproportionate, and getting lots of stick for it. I presume from your answer that you also think we over reacted. Or are you just criticising Boris for the sake of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ve been the one arguing our lockdown was disproportionate, and getting lots of stick for it. I presume from your answer that you also think we over reacted. Or are you just criticising Boris for the sake of it. 

The lockdown was too late and and the easing has been vague and illogical. 

Boris wants to be loved,  but a leaders job is to do the right thing even if it's unpopular. With a majority of 80 and a cabinet full of toadying nonentities, he could have been much tougher and caught the spread before it became so disastrous.

The comparison with other countries shows that it was handled badly and we're not out of the woods yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

The lockdown was too late and and the easing has been vague and illogical. 

Boris wants to be loved,  but a leaders job is to do the right thing even if it's unpopular. With a majority of 80 and a cabinet full of toadying nonentities, he could have been much tougher and caught the spread before it became so disastrous.

The comparison with other countries shows that it was handled badly and we're not out of the woods yet.

You’re praising Japan, but they asked people to stay at home on April 7th, so that’s later than our lockdown. Yet you moan our lockdown was too late. From that, it looks like you’re just picking fault in Boris for the sake of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’re praising Japan, but they asked people to stay at home on April 7th, so that’s later than our lockdown. Yet you moan our lockdown was too late. From that, it looks like you’re just picking fault in Boris for the sake of it. 

Clueless

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, shurlock said:

Sobering reading for the lockdown hardmen who assume there's a fundamental trade-off between saving lives and promoting the economy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html

I believe I made this point many, many pages ago. A virus running rampant through the population causes economic contraction. People in the UK were adopting self-imposed measures before the official lock down began but this needed to be supplemented by a decent testing and containment programme.

The government in the UK was slow, muddled and misguided. 

From the start, the proper experts in this field advocated rapid precautionary responses, with a focus on testing and tracing and isolating outbreaks. We did none of that and followed some sort of managed growth fantasy.

Edited by benjii
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benjii said:

I believe I made this point many, many pages ago. A virus running rampant through the population causes economic contraction. People in the UK were adopting self-imposed measures before the official lock down began but this needed to be supplemented by a decent testing and containment programme.

The government in the UK was slow, muddled and misguided. 

From the start, the proper experts in this field advocated rapid precautionary responses, with a focus on testing and tracing and isolating outbreaks. We did none of that and followed some sort of managed growth fantasy.

Yep I remember you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Coronavirus

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})