Coronavirus

[BillyStubbsTears]

Depends what you're talking about Nudga.

If you're talking about the b*llocks conspiracy theory that we have an epidemic of excess deaths caused by problems not treated because of lockdowns, you're right. I haven't posted about that.

If you're talking about excess deaths because of the crisis in A&E and the NHS in general after 12 years of underfunding, you've not been paying attention.

[ncRover]

Depends what you're talking about Nudga.

If you're talking about the b*llocks conspiracy theory that we have an epidemic of excess deaths caused by problems not treated because of lockdowns, you're right. I haven't posted about that.

If you're talking about excess deaths because of the crisis in A&E and the NHS in general after 12 years of underfunding, you've not been paying attention.

Where were the excess deaths before lockdowns? Of course there will be other factors but you can’t outright say that it isn’t one at all.

The conspiracy theory is the idea that there is an increase due to vaccine side effects, which I don’t adhere to.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nc

We've had consistent underfunding of the NHS since this lot cape to power.

A massive organisation like the NHS can carry on when receiving 1-2% a year less than it needs. But eventually the cracks start opening. And then it can fall apart very suddenly.

This collapse was coming WAY before COVID. It is of course very convenient to blame it on COVID as some Tory politicians want to do. And there are if course batshit conspiracy theorists who will blame it on men from Mars.

But the basic reason why senior NHS doctors think that 500 unnecessary deaths are happening every week in A&E is that the service has slowly fallen apart under the Tories. And now it is collapsing.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And COVID hasn't had a massive effect on the decade long trend

[ncRover]

I agree that the NHS hasn’t been invested in properly. What are your views on countries with healthcare that is free at the point of use but supported more with insurance such as France? (I think it’s like that but correct me I’m not 100% sure how it works).

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1606223956125655040?s=46&t=xkxvWMuG5oiz-5zN3M3PHQ

Also,

“Obesity is a huge strain on public healthcare. A recent NHS report found that 1 million hospital admissions in England were linked to obesity in 2019 - 2020. This had increased by 17% compared to the previous year.

Obesity could cost the NHS over £9 billion by 2050.
These rising admission rates come at a cost. Public Health England reported that the NHS spent over £6 billion on obesity and overweight-related health problems in 2017. They predict this number will have increased by over £9 billion by 2050.”

This is a ticking time bomb also. People need to take personal responsibility for their health more to help the NHS. An ever ageing population is also added pressure.

[TommyC]

Tommy.

The 500 deaths per week is the current number with COVID as a factor on the death certificate.

I didn't say anything about excess deaths. But since you mention it, I heard the head of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (I think that was the name of the organisation) on R4 this morning saying that because of the current A&E crisis, he reckons 500 people a week are dying who should be saved. Apart from the few of those who are COVID sufferers, this is totally separate from COVID.

You can take as long as you want concocting an explanation for why A&E delays now are caused by COVID policy in March 2020. Me, I'd prefer to listen to that expert who said the delays are due to long term under investment in the A&E system. But I'm sure you know better.

Regarding the "nuanced system" I'll ask the question I always ask when that comes up. If it was so easy, why did no-one do it? If you know how to run a "nuanced system", I suggest you cut a deal with the Chinese Consulate in Manchester today. Sell yourself to China as a consultant. You'll make a fortune, because 3 years in, they haven't figured out how to protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society crack on.

YOU haven't got a solution to that. NO-ONE has. Because it doesn't exist.

And YES lockdowns didn't feel right. If you only think about lockdown in isolation. On the spot, at the time, we had a choice between lockdown or 4-500,000 deaths over 6 weeks. 2 million people needing hospital treatment from an NHS with 100,000 beds. How "right" would that have felt?

I did predict this in March 2020. That if we avoided the worst, there'd be plenty of people who were protected from experiencing the disaster we might have had, who then woukd self-importantly insist it was all an over-reaction.

Okay, how about Sweden? It's often tossed around as a being some form of lazy argument against lockdowns. Many people erroneously assume Sweden had no form of protections in place at all which is completely wrong. They had a very "nuanced" system if you'd care to read into the specifics of it, the effectiveness of which has by no means been either conclusively debunked or established, no matter how much certain elements of the socialist press would like to claim otherwise.

 What does seem clear however is that it avoided damaging the educations and the immune systems of the young by avoiding school closures. What also seems clear is that it allowed the virus to disproportionately affect the elderly. In response to that particular ethical dilema, to me that does seem a more "natural" outcome. The elderly are obviously more vulnerable and it seems logical to me that without state intervention, the elderly would naturally pay a higher price in a pandemic sutuation. That's nature i'm afraid.  But then we know you and your ilk love a bit of state intervention dont we. The more state intervention the better is your goal at the expense of personal liberty. As long as everyone is "equal",  no matter how unnatural the outcome it produces. And before you accuse me of being a heartless granny killer, i'm talking about balancing the two evils of short term high death rates amongst the elderly against longer term deaths to our younger generation as a result of their damaged immune systems. The former is a natural outcome of a pandemic, the latter is an outcome we have created through state intervention. See the difference? I'm sorry to say this but the death of a 75 year old seems to me far less of a tragedy than the death of a toddler as a result of a weakened immune system following lockdown.

Debates still rage surrounding social demographics being different in Sweden and their allegedly differing attitudes to authority. Nevertheless, you asked for an example of a more nuanced approach, Sweden offers you that.  Even the left wing press is begrudgingly beginning to acknowledge Sweden as being something of an inconvenience that needs to be studied further.

Sweden is of course to my eyes the same "nuanced" approach I keep banging on about whereby the elderly were advised to stay at home and the rest were allowed to continue with life albeit with some limited form of restrictions in place. It nevertheless avoided total lockdown. We know your thoughts on this BST.

Cue BST witheringly demeaning himself to answer the same 'intellectually bankrupt" point he claims he has already conclusively debunked on behalf of the world, at least eight times previously.

[wilts rover]

Sweden - the country where their own health professionals said 'don't do what we did'.

- a higher death rate than immediate neighbours

- protected far less of its population than anywhere else in Europe

- kept the health system from being overwhelmed by refusing to admit patients thus people with treatable illnesses dying at home

'In August 2021, a modelling study in Scientific Reports showed that the UK would have doubled its pandemic mortality if the Swedish model had been adopted, while Sweden could have reduced it by less than half had it followed the UK strategy.'

We are not talking about ONE 75 year old dying early Tommy. We are talking of tens of thousands.

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/research/sweden-the-pandemic-experiment-without-a-lockdown-a-failure-or-a-model-to-learn-from/

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thanks Wilts. Saved me a job. And I'd hate to have had to make those points yet another time, because I can see how pissed off Tommy gets when I repeat myself.

Tommy.

I'll put this comment down to you getting a bit over-emotional.

"But then we know you and your ilk love a bit of state intervention dont we. The more state intervention the better is your goal at the expense of personal liberty. As long as everyone is "equal",  no matter how unnatural the outcome it produces."

If you genuinely believe it, you won't be getting any more responses from me to anything you write, because there's really not much point exchanging ideas with you.

[TommyC]

I fear your response was far more emotive than mine BST but there we are! It is a subject on which I appreciate you feel strongly. A kinder, gentler politics.....until you say something I disagree with....

My issue is that you have throughout and continue to present this as a settled issue, and you do so in terms that suggest your position is established fact.   No room for debate or discussion on it, as indeed you did back during the pandemic when anyone questioned the wisdom of lockdowns. It is not and never has been as clear cut or as settled an issue as you did and still do, choose to paint it. But that is the "line" adopted by those on the left. Hence my comments about your political views shaping your approach to this.

I think you will both find that the independent commission established to review the Swedish response to the COVID pandemic (which i'm presuming is what you and Wilts are referring to) stated that their response was "fundamentally correct".  It also stated that the state should never interfere with the rights and freedoms of its citizens more than absolutely necessary and it also supported their decision to keep the schools open.  Hardly "don't do what we did" is it?! You see what i'm doing here BST, i'm pointing out the nuances of an alternative approach.

Oh there were criticisms of certain aspects of the Swedish approach, of course there were. There wasn't a magic bullet, one size fits all approach, we all know that. But nobody has categorically and convincingly debunked the Swedish approach, except you of course BST.  You've had the debate on this put to bed for years apparently. Thing is though, it isn't settled and you know it isn't settled and probably never will be. In light of that, the fact you are so vehemently opposed to any rational appraisal of the point says far more about your political zealotry than it does about what a nasty person I apparently am.

Even The Guardian in their coverage of the issue begrudgingly acknowledge that the debate is far from settled. I can post the articles from said-rag if you want but you'll be well aware of them.

I'll give you another example of how you could look at Sweden. Most left wing critics of the Swedish approach choose to focus on "COVID deaths" as you have done below and virtually all vociferous lockdown supporters do/did. However if you apply the "excess deaths" metric to it, Sweden came out of it as one of the best in the world. It;s also interesting to note (and not entirely irrelevant to the debate) hat the Swedish approach produced no excess deaths whatsoever in the under 75 age group. Surely that is something of interest and worthy of discussion.  I use this as one (there are many) example as to how this debate can be framed in so so many different ways, depending on what standpoint you choose to come at it from.

So why then, when the rest of the world begin to look back on the differing approaches to the COVID pandemic and reflect on what could have been done differently/better, are you so partisan on this particular point to the extent that anyone who cares to even suggest an alternative approach, is an unpleasant fool?  As i've said to you before, there are a million shades of grey on this issue. It's a shame you refuse to engage with them.

[TommyC]

And with that, he edits it to remove the reference to my being a nasty fool....

I'd have had more respect for you if you had left your post as it was BST.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy

1) Have a look at when I edited my post, compared to when you replied. I wrote the original text because, frankly, I was fuming at the idiocy of what you had written. The idea that I would instinctively want to have people locked away for months at a time because it satisfied some political preference is so far beyond ridiculous, I'm struggling to understand what caricature of people with a moderate left wing attitude you are working with. I DO think what you said was foolish and nasty, but on reflection after a few minutes, I decided that it wasn't in anyone's interests to go off in that direction, so I deleted that comment. Before you responded.

For the record, I hated lockdowns and I'm still dealing with the consequence on one of my sons and several friends and colleagues. If there was a magic solution that could have eliminated the need for lockdowns, I'd be all ears.

2) I DON'T think your ideas on the Swedish approach are foolish or nasty. I do however, think they are seriously misguided, and frankly, I've got very tired of people on the Right lazily saying "Yeah, but what about Sweden?" for nearly three years.

The Swedish approach was based on a seriously wrong assessment of the epidemic by their top epidemiologist right at the start. He and his team were convinced that herd immunity was going to be reached very quickly, and that was why they advised against lockdowns.

The consequence? If you are going to seriously look at this, you don't want to be looking at Sweden against the UK. Their population density, number of low-occupant homes, previously established record of home working and arguably, sense of social responsibility are very different to ours. What the "What about Sweden" folk never do is to compare Sweden with obviously comparable countries like Norway and Denmark, both of which locked down very hard and very quickly.

In the first wave, the number of COVID deaths per million population were:

Sweden: 560
Denmark: 107
Norway: 45

Total figures to date are:

Sweden: 2133
Denmark: 1342
Norway: 828

However you look at it, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that Sweden had 2-3 times the overall death rate of comparable countries who DID lock down, and perhaps 5-10 times the scale of outbreak in the very intense periods.

Rather than compare Sweden with the UK, think about what would have happened if our experience had seen 2-10 times as many serious cases.

And don't forget the other side of this coin. By locking down so hard and fast, and thereby containing their early outbreaks, Denamrk and Norway had the shortest periods of any European nation under the first lockdown, and thereby had a far lower economic hit than Sweden experienced. (Hand up - I haven't seen the numbers for the second lockdown ,so I don't know if that continued.) And by the way, Sweden DID close secondary schools in the second wave. And their Commission was highly critical of how lax the restrictions were in the first wave.

My take? It's arguable that overall, the Swedish approach was right. For Sweden. That's the key. I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that it would have led to anything other than disaster in countries that didn't have Sweden's major advantages.



THERE's your comparison

[TommyC]

Okay, noted regarding the edit. And for the record, I know that I do on occasion throw in the odd glib/flippant remark that I probably shouldn't, so I don't blame anyone for responding in kind.

What you've posted below is really all I was pushing for in that it does at least acknowledge a conversation or debate could be had about this. You put forward a forceful view as to why it is wrong, but nevertheless begrudgingly acknowledge that there will be different opinions on this. I'll be totally honest, I have neither the existing knowledge on those specific particularities of Sweden versus the UK or the time to research it in order to rebut what you say there. It all looks perfectly reasonable what you say and I did actually acknowledge some of that in my earlier post (population density, attitudes to authority etc). My point however was that these are the exact conversations we should be having and should be continuing to have. Sweden is not to my eyes the absolute horrorshow that it is presented as being in some quarters and there may indeed very well be aspects of it that we could or should have adopted. You may get tired of the lazy right saying "but what about Sweden". I likewise get tired of the left dismissing as complete idiocy, any suggestion of a lighter touch on the Covid restrictions.

This article was posted in The Guardian, exactly one year ago today:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/02/a-wounded-pm-and-ailing-economy-forces-england-to-go-swedish-on-covid

The article itself acknowledges that the debate on this isn't going away any time soon and I don't genuinely believe the narrative has moved on significantly in the past year since that article was published and those conclusions were drawn.

You yourself in your post below and the paper cited in that Guardian article i've linked to, suggest that our "death rate" (note not "excess deaths" - another important variable we could debate) would likely have been at least double had we followed Sweden. Okay, if we take that as fact (which I don't believe is settled but let's say for argument's sake it is), that would place us in a position with us having an additional 200,000 deaths more than we currently have. If the pandemic kicks around for a few more years, let's call it 250,000 additional Covid deaths had we followed Sweden. That is I agree a frightening number. However, if in say 5-10 years time when we look back on the long term effects of Covid lockdowns, the cancelled operations, the cancer patients, the excess heart deaths (see Chris Whitty comments last week), the deaths resulting from poor immunity as a result of lockdowns, is it beyond the realms of possibility that the long term cost of Covid lockdowns could theoretically exceed the short term 250,000 "excess deaths" that we would have had under a Sweden approach? If so, then the conversation would surely be a different one? It's that simple possibility I was asking you to acknowledge that ultimately, long term, we may actually still have ended up in a better place when long term consequences have fully revealed themselves and been properly assessed. A previous poster said words to the effect of "oh yes but that's the beauty of hindsight". Well  no actually, hindsight allows us to review where we've ended up as compared to where we could have ended up. That's a conversation we should be having, particularly when there was such vociferous opposition to lockdown at the time. It's not like 100% of the population agreed with lockdown so how dare you now with the benefit of hindsight criticise it. Many of us felt lockdowns were wrong and watched Sweden with interest. It's called accountability and hindsight allows us to impose it. 

You've made the point on numerous occasions that if it was so easy, why did every other country in the world lock down (except Sweden). Well my view on that is "optics". Government is about short termism and what plays best in the media. Sweden were very brave to take the approach they did and risk the "bodies piled high" scenario. No other country in the world was in my view prepared to take the short term hit to potentially end up in a better place longer term. It's an ugly conversation but a necessary one and one that I genuinely feel will be had over the coming years.   

[Bristol Red Rover]

It's very hard to look at different countries and their lockdown policies as there are so many other variables. One notable difference with Sweden comparing to Denmark and Norway is that Sweden appears to have taken a greater hit in the first year of covid with the large peaks of deaths, whereas Denmark and Norway are both suffering more since then.

Total deaths per million are marked, though the lower two countries are catching up on Sweden:
Sweden 2133
Denmark 1345
Norway 829

Comparing Sweden to the UK, the peaks of deaths are broadly similar though Swedens deaths per million is 2133 in total and UK is 2904.

I wonder how the deaths per million without covid in all these countries compare?

It's not as black and white as some would say.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR, that's very much missing the point.

Firstly, strictly speaking, you are factually wrong Sweden had considerably more deaths after the first wave than either Denmark or Norway:

Deaths/million after the first wave (Jun 2020-Present).

Sweden: 1575
Denmark: 1235
Norway: 785

Secondly, what really matters is WHEN those deaths occurred. COVID was always going to kill a lot of people and make a lot more sick, once it had gone pandemic. The aim of public health policy was never to eliminate COVID - that was impossible. It was to try to keep the lid on it to an acceptable degree until we had a vaccine. At that point, it was going to run through the population, and a number of people who had the vaccine and were unlucky, or who didn't have the vaccine, were going to get seriously ill and die.

The massive danger pre-vaccine, was that if outbreaks got out of control, there would be so many people ill that entire health services would collapse. At that point, God alone knows how many people would have died through lack of treatment - both COVID sufferers who might have been saved, plus the "standard" heart attacks, strokes, accidents etc.

I know Tommy doesn't like me mentioning Bergamo, but you cannot have a grown up discussion on this point without looking at that case, because it is literally the one city in the world where the virus ripped through the population uncontolled. There,the health service (one of the best in the world) did, just stay functional, but only by shipping patients out to hospitals across the whole of Lombardia and beyond. It's like having an outbreak in Sheffield, and requiring the entire hospital capacity of South Yorks, West Yorks, Greater Manc and Merseyside to deal with it.

Now, with that in mind, here's the figures for the two pre-vaccination waves.


Deaths/million in the first wave (Mar-Jun 2020).

Sweden: 560
Denmark: 107
Norway: 45

Deaths per million in second wave (Dec 2020 - Mar 2021)
Sweden: 800
Denmark: 285
Norway: 95

Only AFTER the vaccination programme, with the cessation of most restrictions, did death rates in Denmark increase to above those in Sweden. (Those in Norway never did.)  But these were long, slow waves, which the health services could cope with.

Deaths per million in third wave (post-vaccination programme) (Nov 2021 - May 2022)
Sweden: 390
Denmark: 580
Norway: 360

Deaths per million since third wave (post-vaccination programme) (Jun 2021 - Present)
Sweden: 300
Denmark: 275
Norway: 270

The point is absolutely not that Sweden had similar overall death rates to the UK that WHEN IT MATTERED, Sweden, without a lockdown, had infection and death rates 3-10x higher than in similar countries that DID lock down. The lesson, if people REALLY want to learn it, is to think about what would have happened in the UK in April 2020 and January 2021, if we'd followed the Sweden example and had outbreaks 3-10x bigger than the locked down ones we did experience.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy. Handshake on your first comment.

I'm all for reasoned debate. My issue here is that we've been over this time after time. I haven't seen anything to remotely suggest that the Swedish approach was generally exportable. What I HAVE seen, over and over again (and this is why I get exasperated) is predominantly far-right tub thumpers on social media relentlessly pushing the "why didn't we do what Sweden did?" line, without a hint of nuance or detailed critique. Because it serves a purpose of making people angry that "The Establishment" is f**king them over.

I'm not for a moment putting  you in that category by the way. But I do get tired of the same arguments coming up over and over again, like Zombies, however many times they are dealt with.

PS:. Do you really think the Chinese Govt is worried about Press optics? Don't you think they would be falling over themselves if there was a Swedish solution to there current disastrous crash from uber-lockdown to unmitigated spread?

[wilts rover]

Reading a lot about Kraken XBB15 and none of it good.

[Filo]

Covid has finally got our household, nearly 3 years it has taken to get us

[SydneyRover]

Hope you and the family get through it ok Filo, that goes for anyone that gets it or is still recovering.

[Filo]

Hope you and the family get through it ok Filo, that goes for anyone that gets it or is still recovering.

Thank you, not too bad at the moment feels like a cold to be honest

[Bentley Bullet]

My wife and I got it last year. She was bad for a day and I felt a bit tired and off it for a few days. In fact, we've had worse symptoms from colds in the past.

I suspect we got away with worse symptoms because we'd had our vaccines.

[Filo]

Finally after 12 days I’m Covid clear, perhaps I’ve been lucky or the fact I’m 4 times vaccinated, but all it was to me was a very mild cold

[Nudga]

Finally after 12 days I’m Covid clear, perhaps I’ve been lucky or the fact I’m 4 times vaccinated, but all it was to me was a very mild cold

Same for me filo but as you know you're four nil up on me.

[Nudga]

Reading a lot about Kraken XBB15 and none of it good.

Stop reading about that b*llocks then, you'll feel mentally better.

[Nudga]

I bet some of you fannies couldn't wait to post your positive test kits on Facebook.
And hands up, how many of you changed your profile to that f**kin fully vaccinated rainbow shite

[Filo]

Finally after 12 days I’m Covid clear, perhaps I’ve been lucky or the fact I’m 4 times vaccinated, but all it was to me was a very mild cold

Same for me filo but as you know you're four nil up on me.

Each to their own, like I said who knows if I/we have been lucky or me in particular have benefited from the vaccinations, either way I’m grateful to have had the choice

[normal rules]

Never mind covid, I’ve had a stinker of a cold since Boxing Day, just about back to normal now. Gave it the mrs about a week and a half in.
I’ve heard some people mention a “super cold” . It was anything but super. Proper orrible. I found gin helped.

[ravenrover]

Snap, mine started Friday before christmas left me with a really phlegmy cough just about sorted now. Have to give credit to my 4 year old Grandson for bringing it into the family he had it about 10days before me, his Mum got it just after me she's just about right now.

[normal rules]

Snap, mine started Friday before christmas left me with a really phlegmy cough just about sorted now. Have to give credit to my 4 year old Grandson for bringing it into the family he had it about 10days before me, his Mum got it just after me she's just about right now.

It’s certainly done the rounds in our parts. Three weeks seems to be the going rate. Started with sore throat, then full on coughing, chesty phlegm mess etc. night sweats. Headache. The full cold/flu show.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Never mind covid, I’ve had a stinker of a cold since Boxing Day, just about back to normal now. Gave it the mrs about a week and a half in.
I’ve heard some people mention a “super cold” . It was anything but super. Proper orrible. I found gin helped.

Had the same but used rum, I'll try the gin now 

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1630960569585999874?s=20

This is beyond depressing.

That's from July 2020.

5 months into the epidemic. And senior staff are having to wet nurse Johnson on GSCE level maths.

I have a business contact from China. He was astonished when I told him most of our senior politicians have an educational background in law or arts/humanities. He said the overwhelming majority of the Chinese politburo have scientific/engineering backgrounds.

How can we hope to have senior politicians make sensible decisions if they are functionally innumerate like Johnson here?