Coronavirus

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

I gave you four examples where unarguably you had misrepresented what I said when we last spoke.

YOU initiated the conversation this time. And in the next couple of posts, you entirely ignored the core point of the discussion and chose to misrepresent me twice again. The second one being you bizarrely concluding that I claimed to know what was happening with the virus in China back in January, because in August I posted an article from March which discussed China in January.

And then you have a rant about MY approach to debate!

Goodnight.

[belton rover]

Belton.

I gave you four examples where unarguably you had misrepresented what I said when we last spoke.

YOU initiated the conversation this time. And in the next couple of posts, you entirely ignored the core point of the discussion and chose to misrepresent me twice again. The second one being you bizarrely concluding that I claimed to know what was happening with the virus in China back in January, because in August I posted an article from March which discussed China in January.

And then you have a rant about MY approach to debate!

Goodnight.

See what I mean?

[scawsby steve]

It looks like the custard pies are out again.

[wilts rover]

I have only ever seen one tv programme recorded live. It was an episode of the Mary Whitehouse Experience.

In it they had a sketch where two cantakerous old geezers are slagging one another off and arguing about nothing.

Funny how I have just been reminded of that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

Here's a précis of this exchange.

I gave a list of the large number of U-turns which this Govt has engaged in, including the latest in which, in the space of 8 hours, Govt policy changed from "Science says no masks in school" to "If the science changes we might review that" to "the science has changed".

You felt the need to contend that and say that you can't expect Govt to get every decision right, which is fine. Your absolute right to do so.

I pointed out that on the very biggest issue, it is in my opinion, unequivocally true that the Govt got it badly wrong, and that I just don't understand why anyone would not be critical of the Govt on that.

You asked me who I meant.

I suggested you look through posts on this Forum because there are plenty of examples.

You asked me if I specifically meant you because you don't consider that to be a fair painting of you.

I quoted your own words where you said that it was only with hindsight that we could see the Govt had got anything wrong. I pointed out that was incorrect, because many, many people at the time were screaming out that they had made a desperately wrong decision. I gave an example of the editor of one of the world's most respected medical journals saying so at the time.

You dismissed his opinion and then bizarrely suggested I was claiming to know the right answer back in January. [1]

I pointed out that was a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I'd said.

You accused me of having an antagonistic approach to discussion.

If that general summary is wrong, feel free to point out where.

[1] However you look at it, it is unarguable that China responded in January to the initial outbreak with an unprecedented social lockdown. Whether you accept that that worked or not is irrelevant. The fact is it happened. And medical experts and Governments all over the world were watching that avidly and trying to learn the lessons. So that, when the epidemic hit Europe, countries followed with lockdowns of their own. We had the chance to learn from both China and the first European countries to lock down. But we chose, alone in the world apart from Sweden, to follow a herd immunity policy. Even when the consequences of that were becoming clear. That choice has resulted in at least 30,000 avoidable deaths.

That is the point I've been trying to make. Your response has been to entirely ignore that argument, refuse to engage with that as a discussion, and instead throw out personal insults.

[belton rover]

I have only ever seen one tv programme recorded live. It was an episode of the Mary Whitehouse Experience.

In it they had a sketch where two cantakerous old geezers are slagging one another off and arguing about nothing.

Funny how I have just been reminded of that.

See that muddy puddle on the floor, Wilts?
That’s your swimming pool, that is.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Your call Wilts if you think discussing people's attitudes to a Govt policy that  led to 30,000+ deaths, and which they were warned about at the time, is "arguing about nothing".

[belton rover]

Belton.

Here's a précis of this exchange.

I gave a list of the large number of U-turns which this Govt has engaged in, including the latest in which, in the space of 8 hours, Govt policy changed from "Science says no masks in school" to "If the science changes we might review that" to "the science has changed".

You felt the need to contend that and say that you can't expect Govt to get every decision right, which is fine. Your absolute right to do so.

I pointed out that on the very biggest issue, it is in my opinion, unequivocally true that the Govt got it badly wrong, and that I just don't understand why anyone would not be critical of the Govt on that.

You asked me who I meant.

I suggested you look through posts on this Forum because there are plenty of examples.

You asked me if I specifically meant you because you don't consider that to be a fair painting of you.

I quoted your own words where you said that it was only with hindsight that we could see the Govt had got anything wrong. I pointed out that was incorrect, because many, many people at the time were screaming out that they had made a desperately wrong decision. I gave an example of the editor of one of the world's most respected medical journals saying so at the time.

You dismissed his opinion and then bizarrely suggested I was claiming to know the right answer back in January. [1]

I pointed out that was a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I'd said.

You accused me of having an antagonistic approach to discussion.

If that general summary is wrong, feel free to point out where.

[1] However you look at it, it is unarguable that China responded in January to the initial outbreak with an unprecedented social lockdown. Whether you accept that that worked or not is irrelevant. The fact is it happened. And medical experts and Governments all over the world were watching that avidly and trying to learn the lessons. So that, when the epidemic hit Europe, countries followed with lockdowns of their own. We had the chance to learn from both China and the first European countries to lock down. But we chose, alone in the world apart from Sweden, to follow a herd immunity policy. Even when the consequences of that were becoming clear. That choice has resulted in at least 30,000 avoidable deaths.

That is the point I've been trying to make. Your response has been to entirely ignore that argument, refuse to engage with that as a discussion, and instead throw out personal insults.

I thought you’d gone to bed.
I know someone who’ll be tetchy in the morning!

[SydneyRover]

That's a bit too close?

''Nottinghamshire woman, 75, may be first known UK Covid victim
Scientific analysis suggests coronavirus was spreading in UK weeks earlier than thought''

Their study said this was undetected at the time because the government was restrictive both in its definition of coronavirus symptoms, and over who could be tested.

Prof Jonathan Ball, one of the authors of the study, said: “Had the diagnostic criteria for Covid-19 been widened earlier to include patients with compatible symptoms but no travel history, it is likely that earlier imported infections would have been detected, which could have led to an earlier lockdown and lower deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/25/nottinghamshire-woman-75-may-be-first-known-uk-covid-victim

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

That's a bit too close?

''Nottinghamshire woman, 75, may be first known UK Covid victim
Scientific analysis suggests coronavirus was spreading in UK weeks earlier than thought''

Their study said this was undetected at the time because the government was restrictive both in its definition of coronavirus symptoms, and over who could be tested.

Prof Jonathan Ball, one of the authors of the study, said: “Had the diagnostic criteria for Covid-19 been widened earlier to include patients with compatible symptoms but no travel history, it is likely that earlier imported infections would have been detected, which could have led to an earlier lockdown and lower deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/25/nottinghamshire-woman-75-may-be-first-known-uk-covid-victim

In the middle of cold and flu season when we were trying to prevent an economic disaster aswell as a health one?  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  If there was an acceptance we'd have a full scale lockdown at that point then we might have acted more differently.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP.

At precisely the time that Prof Bell is talking about, the de facto Prime Minister was quoted as saying that the Govt's policy was "Herd immunity, protect the economy and if a few old folk die, too bad."

PS. At the same time, the de jure PM of course was off work, sorting out the fallout from his latest affair and broken marriage.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Getting a bit embarrassing now isn't it?

This morning: Alok Sharma wheeled out on R4 to say that the Govt is following the science by not requiring kids in schools to wear masks.

This lunchtime, Johnson says of course that may change if the scientific advice changes.

This evening...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53907035


This isn't Government. This is responding to whatever is in the f**king headlines.

How many times now, in just 8 months, has the Government insisted it is doing the correct thing, then changed 180degrees in a few days or hours?

Herd immunity. We weren't going to have a big lockdown. Until we did.

No customs checks between GB and NI.

Health cover for foreign key workers.

Reopening primary schools in June

World leading TTI by 1 June

Free school meals over the summer.

Exam results

Masks in school.

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. That's more big u-turns in 3-4 months than you'd expect from an entire Govt term.


 It's shambolic. And it's more than just appearances. It comes from desperately wanting to appear strong and resolute, but not actually getting the policies right at the start. So how do you now trust anything this Govt firmly announces when you know it's a 50/50 shot that they'll flip to the exact opposite in a day or two?

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that having so many U-turns is not a sign of a healthy Government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53962883

[albie]

Hancock insisting that there was no herd immunity strategy;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/up-50000-unnecessary-deaths-uk-22600532

Now that we know any resistance to re-infection is variable, and may reduce over time, the 50k excess deaths looks a high price to pay for a strategy he didn't have!

Hancock needs to read his Dominic Cummings if he wants to know the truth.
He doesn't want to know, does he?

[belton rover]

Hancock insisting that there was no herd immunity strategy;
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/up-50000-unnecessary-deaths-uk-22600532

Now that we know any resistance to re-infection is variable, and may reduce over time, the 50k excess deaths looks a high price to pay for a strategy he didn't have!

Hancock needs to read his Dominic Cummings if he wants to know the truth.
He doesn't want to know, does he?

That’s not a link to Hancock insisting anything. It’s a link to someone from the Daily Mirror saying that’s what he did.

[albie]

Belton,

Hancock has been saying this for a long time;
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/matt-hancock-insists-herd-immunity-not-part-of-governments-plan-for-tackling-coronavirus

It has been covered before in this thread, so I thought no need to repeat.

The overview of the Government position from earlier in the year is a reminder, if things have slipped your mind;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

Sometimes it can be difficult to keep up with what has gone before.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I have a theory on this which is deeply depressing if true.

I actually don't believe that the Govt ever had a policy of totally unmitigated virus spread, leading to rapid HI. That would have been utter insanity and I don't think the Govt is quite so spectacularly out of control as that.

My theory is that they wanted to do the sort of clever response that Nudga has referred to. Namely, shield the old and vulnerable, but otherwise allow society to continue more or less as normal. That way, the younger, healthier part of the population would have been exposed to the virus and we'd have gone a long way towards getting HI.

I think that's what Hancock's dissembling means when he claims that HI was never the policy - I think he means unmitigated HI.

Two problems with that.

1) We already know that more than 1% of 50-65 year olds who get the virus are dying from it. So the "vulnerable and old" category would have included millions of people in senior employment. Or if not, the fatality numbers among that demographic would have been horrific.

2) That policy needed time to finesse. We know that the advisers got the timing badly wrong in March. They were regularly saying that we were four weeks behind Italy and I suspect the original Govt plan was to lockdown the old and vulnerable in early April based on that timing.

But that was a horrific mistake. We were never 4 weeks behind Italy. We were two weeks behind as any amateur could see.

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=276488.msg955068#msg955068

I suspect that when they suddenly realised that we were in fact only two weeks behind Italy, with that famous Imperial College report that out the shits up everyone (Cummings was reported to have turned white as a sheet at that SAGE meeting) they realised that they had lost control.

[ravenrover]

on a number of ocassions now when visiting our local shops, the number of younger ie late teens early twenties who swan about with no face coverings in the shops and the look of "don't you dare say anything to me" is astounding. Obviously that age group think they are immune or just don't give a f#@k

[belton rover]

Belton,

Hancock has been saying this for a long time;
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/matt-hancock-insists-herd-immunity-not-part-of-governments-plan-for-tackling-coronavirus

It has been covered before in this thread, so I thought no need to repeat.

The overview of the Government position from earlier in the year is a reminder, if things have slipped your mind;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

Sometimes it can be difficult to keep up with what has gone before.

Albie.
I didn’t say he hadn’t said it. I said the link you used to support your opening statement wasn’t Hancock saying anything at all.

This is what happens when people start throwing around links willy nilly under the guise of ‘evidence’. It kind of makes a farce of this whole linking process. But, if that’s what the hierarchy want...

[wilts rover]

Belton,

Hancock has been saying this for a long time;
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/matt-hancock-insists-herd-immunity-not-part-of-governments-plan-for-tackling-coronavirus

It has been covered before in this thread, so I thought no need to repeat.

The overview of the Government position from earlier in the year is a reminder, if things have slipped your mind;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

Sometimes it can be difficult to keep up with what has gone before.

Albie.
I didn’t say he hadn’t said it. I said the link you used to support your opening statement wasn’t Hancock saying anything at all.

This is what happens when people start throwing around links willy nilly under the guise of ‘evidence’. It kind of makes a farce of this whole linking process. But, if that’s what the hierarchy want...

I disagree Belton - that is exactly why you should provide a link if you are attempting to state a fact - because then people can check if it is true or not. If it's not, then you are correct to point it out.

I get paid for doing it. Sometimes people don't like what I tell them but I am afraid evidence is a fact and a fact is evidence.

[Nudga]

Still no mention of zero deaths a week last Thursday and its daily average is now just 5.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nudga.

Yes. It's good news. I commented on here two or three weeks ago that we seem to be doing a better job than most other countries in keeping the infection rates low.

[albie]

Nudga,

Yes, very pleased that the death rate is currently low.

If you look at the bigger picture of the first wave of Covid, then not so good;
https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1297883905761173504/photo/1

The question now is what happens when the second wave comes through in winter, unless a treatment or vaccine is available. Top end 80k deaths or so suggested by some, so it is too early to sit back.

Meanwhile, the Government is doing its bit for health workers bereaved;
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/21/uk-families-bereaved-by-covid-19-lose-eligibility-for-welfare-benefits

Unreal!

[belton rover]

Belton,

Hancock has been saying this for a long time;
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/matt-hancock-insists-herd-immunity-not-part-of-governments-plan-for-tackling-coronavirus

It has been covered before in this thread, so I thought no need to repeat.

The overview of the Government position from earlier in the year is a reminder, if things have slipped your mind;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

Sometimes it can be difficult to keep up with what has gone before.

Albie.
I didn’t say he hadn’t said it. I said the link you used to support your opening statement wasn’t Hancock saying anything at all.

This is what happens when people start throwing around links willy nilly under the guise of ‘evidence’. It kind of makes a farce of this whole linking process. But, if that’s what the hierarchy want...

I disagree Belton - that is exactly why you should provide a link if you are attempting to state a fact - because then people can check if it is true or not. If it's not, then you are correct to point it out.

I get paid for doing it. Sometimes people don't like what I tell them but I am afraid evidence is a fact and a fact

Belton,

Hancock has been saying this for a long time;
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/matt-hancock-insists-herd-immunity-not-part-of-governments-plan-for-tackling-coronavirus

It has been covered before in this thread, so I thought no need to repeat.

The overview of the Government position from earlier in the year is a reminder, if things have slipped your mind;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

Sometimes it can be difficult to keep up with what has gone before.

Albie.
I didn’t say he hadn’t said it. I said the link you used to support your opening statement wasn’t Hancock saying anything at all.

This is what happens when people start throwing around links willy nilly under the guise of ‘evidence’. It kind of makes a farce of this whole linking process. But, if that’s what the hierarchy want...

I disagree Belton - that is exactly why you should provide a link if you are attempting to state a fact - because then people can check if it is true or not. If it's not, then you are correct to point it out.

I get paid for doing it. Sometimes people don't like what I tell them but I am afraid evidence is a fact and a fact is evidence.

I wouldn’t question your expertise, Wilts, but not everyone gets paid to spot these errors, and I’m certain that almost nobody else on here is qualified in this way.

Are you suggesting that it’s better to post a link that is full of b*llocks, hoping no one notices than not to post a link at all?

[drfchound]

on a number of ocassions now when visiting our local shops, the number of younger ie late teens early twenties who swan about with no face coverings in the shops and the look of "don't you dare say anything to me" is astounding. Obviously that age group think they are immune or just don't give a f#@k

Would they give a f**k if they infected their parents of grandparents?

[idler]

on a number of ocassions now when visiting our local shops, the number of younger ie late teens early twenties who swan about with no face coverings in the shops and the look of "don't you dare say anything to me" is astounding. Obviously that age group think they are immune or just don't give a f#@k

No, they would probably blame the NHS.




Would they give a f**k if they infected their parents of grandparents?

[Nudga]

If masks work, why are infections rising?

Edit, my mum was happy to have cuddle when I saw her today.

[selby]

  Hound, probably not.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nudga.

1) Masks aren't 100% effective. No one has ever said they are.

2) Not everyone is wearing them when they should.

3) Infections aren't going up in the UK. The latest ONS surveys have shown that the number of new infections per day have been pretty well constant over August. There is a bit of an uptick in the number of positive test cases because there are more tests being conducted, so a higher percentage of the (stable) number of infected people is being found.

[BillyStubbsTears]

  Hound, probably not.

I remember once being sub for the Goldthorpe Hotel in the Dearne Sunday League. Pair of twins played in the team. Lovely lads. But they'd told their dad we were playing away that morning when in fact we were playing at home.

Their dad turned up just before half time, face like thunder, after a wasted trip to Wath. Walked past me and muttered, "Right pair of useless Kitsons I've brung up."

Any relation Selby?

[wilts rover]

I wouldn’t question your expertise, Wilts, but not everyone gets paid to spot these errors, and I’m certain that almost nobody else on here is qualified in this way.

Are you suggesting that it’s better to post a link that is full of b*llocks, hoping no one notices than not to post a link at all?

No I am saying if you are making a statement of fact then it is good to evidence it - so people can check whether it is fact or not. As you did.

If someone wants to put up a link that is full of b*llocks - or write a post that is full of b*llocks and post a link that says something different - then they deserve to be caught out.

If you have a problem with links and think that people should just be able to post b*llocks without evidencing it, well...