Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,544
Reaction score
3,037
I’m not sure procurement processes is the issue though, actually. The government went outside of their frameworks, for speed. The right decision. But the people doing the buying in this way weren’t the right ones. When something is like hen’s teeth anyway, it places extra pressure on the judgement of the buyer to get it right.
 

peterchilton

Well-known member
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
920
Location
Mid Wales
I’m not sure procurement processes is the issue though, actually. The government went outside of their frameworks, for speed. The right decision. But the people doing the buying in this way weren’t the right ones. When something is like hen’s teeth anyway, it places extra pressure on the judgement of the buyer to get it right.
Absolutely agree. Unprecedented times.
 

tenet

Well-known member
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
841
Location
cotswolds
I’m not sure procurement processes is the issue though, actually. The government went outside of their frameworks, for speed. The right decision. But the people doing the buying in this way weren’t the right ones. When something is like hen’s teeth anyway, it places extra pressure on the judgement of the buyer to get it right.
You dont know and I dont know but as sure as God makes little green apples an individual civil servant will NOT make a multy million £ decisions without some sort of committee meeting and would certainly not work with what I suspect were dodgy suppliers. Yes, some purchases were outwith spec and the press were over it like a rash but by and large the kit was obtained and delivered to the NHS. FFS the press even criticized the fact that some ports were rammed with surplus kit holding up other import/exports. This pandemic has certainly been the gift that keeps on giving for those armchair critics and left leaning politicians who wish to find fault in everything.
 

peterchilton

Well-known member
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
920
Location
Mid Wales
You dont know and I dont know but as sure as God makes little green apples an individual civil servant will NOT make a multy million £ decisions without some sort of committee meeting and would certainly not work with what I suspect were dodgy suppliers. Yes, some purchases were outwith spec and the press were over it like a rash but by and large the kit was obtained and delivered to the NHS. FFS the press even criticized the fact that some ports were rammed with surplus kit holding up other import/exports. This pandemic has certainly been the gift that keeps on giving for those armchair critics and left leaning politicians who wish to find fault in everything.
And whingers 😉
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,544
Reaction score
3,037
You dont know and I dont know but as sure as God makes little green apples an individual civil servant will NOT make a multy million £ decisions without some sort of committee meeting and would certainly not work with what I suspect were dodgy suppliers. Yes, some purchases were outwith spec and the press were over it like a rash but by and large the kit was obtained and delivered to the NHS. FFS the press even criticized the fact that some ports were rammed with surplus kit holding up other import/exports. This pandemic has certainly been the gift that keeps on giving for those armchair critics and left leaning politicians who wish to find fault in everything.
Not having it - the new procurement framework actively sought to offer contracts to those recommended by government ministers, MPs, Lords and civil servants. That's just not cool or the best way to go about the job, regardless of how much you love the current government or dislike Jeremy Corbyn and socialism.
 

tenet

Well-known member
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
841
Location
cotswolds
A quick skim of the attached highlights that in normal circumstances the framework provides benefits but given the fact that demand far far far outstripped supply then the benefits of group buying surely fall down and we are left with who knows whom and who will pay the most.

 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,573
Reaction score
1,132
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
seeking, that IS really poor. Especially criticising others for tangled logic and misrepresenting data. On top of the things Tangled pointed out - how do we ‘know’ lockdown compliance was slacker in the first lockdown than this one? Where are your sources? And this second lockdown is much less ‘hard’ than the first - schools are more open, nursery and childcare is open, more retail stayed open (eg garden centres), takeaways have stayed open, people can work in other people’s homes in England... We observed cases rising in September and did nothing until November. That’s not locking down fast and hard. Where are you getting this stuff from?! What case are you even trying to build with all that? It’s just words.

LOL, aye right, you can pontificate about what "IS really poor":

I hardly saw a car driving in a city of over half a million inhabitants in the first Lockdown, for ages (the commonest things on the road were discarded muzzles) because folk really were concerned and scared.

Once the numbers and facts were in and it was clear CV19 was mainly harmless to the vast vast majority of folk, and was only really a threat to the elderly or infirm, compliance abated even before the seasonal virus disappeared in the spring-summer...

Whereas the 2nd lockdown it's more or less business as usual with everyone disregarding it and cars and traffic jams the norm. Public parks in the first lockdown were wastelands, whereas you can hardly move in them during the second. Unlike the views presented on the MSM and the Lockdown proponents in cyberspace, most folk in the real world have actually woken up and realised the threat from the virus is minimal compared to the very real harms Lockdown causes. Do you not go out and see for yourself the fact that everyone has realised this?

But I think you have missed the point, and cannot rely on tangled logic - after all, there's no point trying to hype a 2nd wave casedemic but ignoroing the possiblity the first wave was significantly higer cases just unreported, as the "2nd wave much worse than the first" crowd do.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Using your logic we would therefore have expected significantly more excess deaths in the second than the first wave, but that is not what we see is it? The 2nd wave excess deaths are just over half the first as clearly obvious in the graph below. Promoters of Lockdown such as yourself must stop with the SCARY stuff and start pondering the true impacts.

It just comes across like the misuse of science to SCARE the gullible. We know for a fact (the actual hard data in that second graph, reproduced below) that the true impact of the second wave was significantly less than the first. Yet you still deny it.

Why the denial?



Logic - Herd Immunity.png







I'm just scrolling down....been away fishing all day, so no doubt someone will have said similar/or argued the opposite, lol. The more time goes on, the more I get the impression that this virus just does what it does, regardless of what we mere humans think we can do to 'stop' it.. Takes out those who are vulnerable and the rest of us seem to be decently immune - in a broad sense.

I'll be very interested to see what happens in New Zealand when they reopen their borders to international travel. If my thoughts are correct, I reckon they'll be hit hard on a similar trajectory that has been experienced elsewhere.

Time will tell and I genuinely hope I'm wrong with this thought process.

Ah, fishing, I remember... Good on you :cool:

Spot on first paragraph. We can all see in Italy and France etc. they are now battling the "Third Wave" of CV19 and Locking down again! Well isn't that a brilliant advert for how taking away fundamental freedoms stops the spread of the virus!!! Is this all they have got?

Doing it twice and expecting a different result would be madness...

Third time, well that's surely fascism.

Agree 100% we need to just get on with it like you say by protecting the vulnerable (stopping the NHS seed it back to carehomes etc.) which has already been done if you believe the placebo vaccine works to do so and letting life carry on normally for the >99.5% of folk who get over CV19 easily. But of course SFF's very own armchair experts poh-pooh'ed the Great Barrington Declaration when it was first mentioned on here.
Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org)
https://gbdeclaration.org/


We have had a march stolen on us by China, who swiftly reverted to normal and never looked back despite starting off the Lockdown craze in the Formerly Free West.

About NZ, I am not so sure, because it appears to be a fact that the Pacific nations had higher natural acquired immunity to sinogenic similar viruses (the various animal flus) than before... maybe they won't get it as bad, but even if they did, the political response of Lockdown will likely be much more harmful in the medium-long term than the effect of CV19. Their economy is toast, and they are now even less likely to be able to fend off their near neighbours...
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,544
Reaction score
3,037
LOL, aye right, you can pontificate about what "IS really poor":

I hardly saw a car driving in a city of over half a million inhabitants in the first Lockdown, for ages (the commonest things on the road were discarded muzzles) because folk really were concerned and scared.

Once the numbers and facts were in and it was clear CV19 was mainly harmless to the vast vast majority of folk, and was only really a threat to the elderly or infirm, compliance abated even before the seasonal virus disappeared in the spring-summer...

Whereas the 2nd lockdown it's more or less business as usual with everyone disregarding it and cars and traffic jams the norm. Public parks in the first lockdown were wastelands, whereas you can hardly move in them during the second. Unlike the views presented on the MSM and the Lockdown proponents in cyberspace, most folk in the real world have actually woken up and realised the threat from the virus is minimal compared to the very real harms Lockdown causes. Do you not go out and see for yourself the fact that everyone has realised this?

But I think you have missed the point, and cannot rely on tangled logic - after all, there's no point trying to hype a 2nd wave casedemic but ignoroing the possiblity the first wave was significantly higer cases just unreported, as the "2nd wave much worse than the first" crowd do.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Using your logic we would therefore have expected significantly more excess deaths in the second than the first wave, but that is not what we see is it? The 2nd wave excess deaths are just over half the first as clearly obvious in the graph below. Promoters of Lockdown such as yourself must stop with the SCARY stuff and start pondering the true impacts.

It just comes across like the misuse of science to SCARE the gullible. We know for a fact (the actual hard data in that second graph, reproduced below) that the true impact of the second wave was significantly less than the first. Yet you still deny it.

Why the denial?



View attachment 58704








Ah, fishing, I remember... Good on you :cool:

Spot on first paragraph. We can all see in Italy and France etc. they are now battling the "Third Wave" of CV19 and Locking down again! Well isn't that a brilliant advert for how taking away fundamental freedoms stops the spread of the virus!!! Is this all they have got?

Doing it twice and expecting a different result would be madness...

Third time, well that's surely fascism.

Agree 100% we need to just get on with it like you say by protecting the vulnerable (stopping the NHS seed it back to carehomes etc.) which has already been done if you believe the placebo vaccine works to do so and letting life carry on normally for the >99.5% of folk who get over CV19 easily. But of course SFF's very own armchair experts poh-pooh'ed the Great Barrington Declaration when it was first mentioned on here.
Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org)
https://gbdeclaration.org/


We have had a march stolen on us by China, who swiftly reverted to normal and never looked back despite starting off the Lockdown craze in the Formerly Free West.

About NZ, I am not so sure, because it appears to be a fact that the Pacific nations had higher natural acquired immunity to sinogenic similar viruses (the various animal flus) than before... maybe they won't get it as bad, but even if they did, the political response of Lockdown will likely be much more harmful in the medium-long term than the effect of CV19. Their economy is toast, and they are now even less likely to be able to fend off their near neighbours...
“I hardly saw a car in lockdown 1” is your evidence point for “we know compliance in lockdown 1 was slacker than this one”? Like I said - I’m honestly (not disingenuously) baffled regarding the point you’re trying to make. It jumps about all over the shop. ‘We’ don’t know ‘know’ anything - ‘you’ are positioning observation as fact, and I think getting your narrative muddled in your head as you do. So yes. Poor...
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,573
Reaction score
1,132
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
“I hardly saw a car in lockdown 1” is your evidence point for “we know compliance in lockdown 1 was slacker than this one”? Like I said - I’m honestly (not disingenuously) baffled regarding the point you’re trying to make. It jumps about all over the shop. ‘We’ don’t know ‘know’ anything - ‘you’ are positioning observation as fact, and I think getting your narrative muddled in your head as you do. So yes. Poor...

No need to be disingenious or offensive, my scientific observations are likewise supported by official HMG data (presumably you can accept that):

The graph shows GB car usage from pre-Lockdown 1 to present (blue, with a 7-day rolling average in black). Only a fool would suggest that the first Lockdown was not heeded far more tightly than the Tiers and 2nd Lockdown.

GB car usage May20 on.png




Source:
Transport use during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Use of transport modes: Great Britain, since 1 March 2020a
Figures are percentages of an equivalent day or week.

The case for the defence rests.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,262
Reaction score
3,062
Location
edzell
Are we in a 3rd wave?
According to the beeb we are.
I wonder if this one will change in a couple of hours time?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210319-113828.png
    Screenshot_20210319-113828.png
    812.4 KB · Views: 27

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,544
Reaction score
3,037
No need to be disingenious or offensive, my scientific observations are likewise supported by official HMG data (presumably you can accept that):

The graph shows GB car usage from pre-Lockdown 1 to present (blue, with a 7-day rolling average in black). Only a fool would suggest that the first Lockdown was not heeded far more tightly than the Tiers and 2nd Lockdown.

View attachment 58705



Source:
Transport use during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Use of transport modes: Great Britain, since 1 March 2020a
Figures are percentages of an equivalent day or week.

The case for the defence rests.
Might just be me. But you said:

"What can we make of this? There are of course a number of issues, we know that Lockdown compliance was slacker in the first, so deaths don't correlate with compliance (if you believe that Lockdown actually works to minimise these?)."

We know that Lockdown compliance was slacker in the first.

You can't come at people for tangled logic when your own arguments are... tangled. And 'I didn't see many cars about' is NOT a scientific observation.
 
Last edited:

fixedspool

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
505
Well you go away for a few days and come back to find the same old candidates trying to score points with the usual silly one liners 9like Elibank just did) and defamation of any non establishment critics They are now resorting to swapping stories of personal vaccine experiences like excited children in the playground.
Seems the concentration camp care homes and inhuman treatment of their inhabitants has already been forgotten. The 5.000 plus people suffering from cancer said to have died unable to get the treatment they needed. People scared to visit hospital who may have illness and symptoms that could be life threatening and no doubt will be in the future. The endless list of people waiting for appointments for already identified serious conditions. Now we have the 500 (tip of the iceberg) do not resuscitate victims whose lives have been dismissed by the gods in white coats as they stroll the wards deciding on those unworthy of any attempt to try and save their lives with no consultation with relatives whatsoever. They and the NHS should be sued until the pips squeak. they are guilty of manslaughter at the very least/
 

Elibank

Well-known member
Messages
2,352
Reaction score
1,699
Location
Derbyshire
Well you go away for a few days and come back to find the same old candidates trying to score points with the usual silly one liners 9like Elibank just did) and defamation of any non establishment critics They are now resorting to swapping stories of personal vaccine experiences like excited children in the playground.
Seems the concentration camp care homes and inhuman treatment of their inhabitants has already been forgotten. The 5.000 plus people suffering from cancer said to have died unable to get the treatment they needed. People scared to visit hospital who may have illness and symptoms that could be life threatening and no doubt will be in the future. The endless list of people waiting for appointments for already identified serious conditions. Now we have the 500 (tip of the iceberg) do not resuscitate victims whose lives have been dismissed by the gods in white coats as they stroll the wards deciding on those unworthy of any attempt to try and save their lives with no consultation with relatives whatsoever. They and the NHS should be sued until the pips squeak. they are guilty of manslaughter at the very least/
...and how did the anger management course go then?
 

C3OLIN

Member
Messages
190
Reaction score
24
Think it’s time this thread is closed down tbh. Half hour reading through and it’s become counterproductive and divisive and a great window to the fact that none of us have any answers but only opinions on this matter.
Other things that are worse going on in the world at the minute folks.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,573
Reaction score
1,132
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
Might just be me. But you said:

"What can we make of this? There are of course a number of issues, we know that Lockdown compliance was slacker in the first, so deaths don't correlate with compliance (if you believe that Lockdown actually works to minimise these?)."

We know that Lockdown compliance was slacker in the first.

You can't come at people for tangled logic when your own arguments are... tangled. And 'I didn't see many cars about' is NOT a scientific observation.

First off, I've gone and edited #13,115 as I actually meant to say "compliance was slacker in the second than the first wave" - hence if you are a Lockdown proponent and believe that Lockdown will reduce cases and hence deaths you would expect more deaths under the slacker 2nd wave compliance than under the stricter 1st wave compliance. i.e. the opposite of what actually happened!

Back to "I didn't see many cars about" .

Er, it was scientific, it was based on empirical observations Checking traffic on a major thoroughfare through a major city and observing how many vehicular trips were being undertaken (at the same time of day, natch) over long period.

Sure it's just an empirical scientific observation, but as previously demonstrated it actually did concur with the official HMG data I shared in graphic form that you have chosen to totally ignore.

However, it could be that you haven't got it so I will explain in more detail:

The graph below shows all-GB car usage (see #13,175 for original source and explanation). So this reflects peoples mobility, the numbers driving around.

You will see that before Lockdown 1, usage was at >100% of "normal".

Once Lockdown 1 occurred (late-March, post peak-CV19 infection), long-term average car usage dropped to only ~30% of normal. That is a huge drop, anyone will agree.

By mid-May it was back to about 50% and by August was about 90%.

When the Tier system of "lockdown light" occurred GB car usage dropped to 70% of normal and by Xmas it was about 80% as the shackles were lifted on the GB public and we were granted a few days to go mingle and "infect everyone with CV19".

Following Bozza's U-Turn, the Lockdown was then brought back in and the average of car usage dropped to~50% of normal (i.e. almost double what it had been in Lockdown 1) before rapidly climbing (as folk realised they needed to carry on with living not existing) and the latest figures indicate it's going quickly up, and is over 70% of normal. That indicates the public are actually "voting with their feet" and realise the 2nd wave is a bit of a "damp squib" c.f. the first.

All that is confirmed in this graph:

GB car usage May20 on.png



Ergo, on the basis of car journeys = personaly mobility, the first Lockdown changed things dramatically and severely restricted peoples movement.

Tiers and Lockdown 2 had a significantly lesser impact on folks car usage, as clearly evidenced by empirical observations on the streets during both Lockdowns.

If you were a betting person, and CV19 infection was reduced by people acting abnormally, you'd say that under Lockdown 2 there should be more infection leading to death than under Lockdown 1. Substantially more!

Which is the exact opposite of the facts, whereby despite the vastly increased mobility of the public, the 2nd wave was just over half as deadly as the first...

Logic - Herd Immunity.png




I am unconvinced that you actually understand how science works! But carry on with the straw men, by all means...
 
Last edited:

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,262
Reaction score
3,062
Location
edzell
Can anyone point out the huge spike caused by 1000s of rangers fans breaking all lockdown rules 2 weeks ago in the covid epicentre of Scotland.
A bottle of Fettercairn for the one that can show a spike here that was caused by these fans gathering, avoiding social distancing and shouting and singing outside.
I certainly cant see it.
Now if they were all under 14 school kids, then you might be able to spot it.

Screenshot_20210319-135015.png
Screenshot_20210319-135047.png
Screenshot_20210319-135129.png
Screenshot_20210319-135148.png
Screenshot_20210319-135841.png
Screenshot_20210319-140007.png
Screenshot_20210319-134829.png
Screenshot_20210319-134949.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210319-135015.png
    Screenshot_20210319-135015.png
    168.1 KB · Views: 23
  • Screenshot_20210319-135047.png
    Screenshot_20210319-135047.png
    232.6 KB · Views: 18
  • Screenshot_20210319-135129.png
    Screenshot_20210319-135129.png
    236.4 KB · Views: 22
  • Screenshot_20210319-135148.png
    Screenshot_20210319-135148.png
    265 KB · Views: 19
  • Screenshot_20210319-134829.png
    Screenshot_20210319-134829.png
    383.3 KB · Views: 19
  • Screenshot_20210319-134949.png
    Screenshot_20210319-134949.png
    191.8 KB · Views: 24

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,573
Reaction score
1,132
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
Whoahhh, steady with the facts (;)and empirical observations) mows

:cool:


Meanwhile there's an interesting article quoted below, source here

"COVID-19: an overview of the evidence

March 18, 2021

The data is in: lockdowns serve no useful purpose and cause catastrophic societal and economic harms. They must never be repeated in this country.
The ‘sunk cost fallacy’ is a well known one. World War 1 is the classic example. By Christmas 1914 it was obvious to all that the war was a catastrophe, but to admit this was to admit that all the lives lost had been lost pointlessly. And no country would confess that.

However, after a year of pain, suffering and enormous loss, the UK must reach for new solutions to the COVID-19 problem and any future respiratory disease outbreaks. We must learn from errors, acknowledge the harms of the measures we have taken and account for them moving forward. We now need a more holistic, measured approach.

Many international studies bear out that lockdowns have proven to be a complete failure as a public health measure to contain a respiratory virus. They did not succeed in their primary objective of containing spread yet have caused great harm.

Lockdowns were explicitly not recommended even for severe respiratory viral outbreaks in all pandemic planning prior to 2020, including those endorsed by the WHO and the Department of Health. The reasons for ignoring existing policies and adopting unprecedented measures appear to have been (i) panic whipped up by the media (especially scenes from China), (ii) a reluctance to do things differently to neighbouring countries and (iii) the unfaltering belief in one single mathematical model, which latterly turned out to be wildly inaccurate (Imperial College, Neil Ferguson).

We must find the courage to do things differently and to admit mistakes. The USA is leading the charge here, with more and more states turning their backs on lockdowns and mask mandates.
Moving forward, we would recommend the following steps:

  1. Reinstate the existing pandemic planning policies from 2019, pending a detailed review of the policies adopted in 2020. Look to countries and states which did things differently. There should be a clear commitment from the Government that we will never again lockdown.
  2. Stop mass testing healthy people. Return to the principles of respiratory disease diagnosis (the requirement of symptoms) that were well researched and accepted before 2020. Manufacturers’ guidelines state that these tests are designed to assist the diagnosis of symptomatic patients, not to ‘find’ disease in otherwise healthy people.
  3. Stop all mask mandates. They are psychologically and potentially physically harmful whilst being clinically unproven to stop disease spread in the community and may themselves be a transmission risk.
  4. Vaccination. Abandon the notion that vaccine certification is desirable and that children should be vaccinated. There is no logical or ethical argument for either.
  5. Devise a public education programme to help redress the severe distortions in beliefs around disease transmission, likelihood of dying and possible treatment options. A messaging style based on a calm presentation of facts is urgently needed.
  6. A full public enquiry into the extent to which severe/fatal COVID-19 is spread in hospitals and care homes. There is stark recent evidence on this from Public Health Scotland 3 and if true for the rest of the UK, there needs to be better segregation of COVID-19 patients and staff within these settings.
  7. More funding and investigation of treatments for COVID-19, instead of only focusing on vaccination as a strategy. Given the high rates of hospital transmission, encourage a drive for more early treatment-at-home using some of the protocols discussed herein.
  8. Divert funds. The not inconsiderable money saved from ceasing testing programmes can be diverted to much needed areas, such as mental health, treatment research and an increase in hospital capacity and staffing. The vast debts accrued during 2020 will also need to be paid off, a fact that seems to be worryingly absent from economic recovery plans.

Read our full review of the evidence here >
Our group of scientists, medics and public health experts have put together this rigorously and widely researched document. Topics included are:

  • COVID policies and harm to children – Professor Ellen Townsend; Dr Karen Neil
  • COVID-19 vaccination in children – major ethical concerns – Dr Ros Jones
  • Vaccine passports – an ethical minefield – Dr Malcolm Kendrick
  • Asymptomatic spread – who can really spread COVID-19? Dr John Lee
  • Economic impacts – the true cost of lockdowns – Professor David Paton; Professor Marilyn James
  • Mutant strains and the futility of border closures – Dr Gerry Quinn
  • ‘ Zero Covid’ – an impossible dream- Professor David Livermore
  • Masks – do the benefits outweigh the harms? – Dr Gary Sidley
  • Psychological impact of the Government’s communication style and
    restrictive measures – Dr Damian Wilde
  • Lockdowns – do they work? – Professor Marilyn James
  • Mortality data & COVID-19 – Joel Smalley
  • The ONS Infection Survey: a reevaluation of the data – Dr Clare Craig; Dr Paul Cuddon
  • Promising treatment options – Dr Ros Jones; Dr Edmund Fordham
  • Care homes – we must do better for the most vulnerable in society – Dr Ali Haggett
  • Ethical considerations of the COVID-19 response – Professor David Seedhouse"
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,544
Reaction score
3,037
Whoahhh, steady with the facts (;)and empirical observations) mows

:cool:


Meanwhile there's an interesting article quoted below, source here

"COVID-19: an overview of the evidence

March 18, 2021

The data is in: lockdowns serve no useful purpose and cause catastrophic societal and economic harms. They must never be repeated in this country.
The ‘sunk cost fallacy’ is a well known one. World War 1 is the classic example. By Christmas 1914 it was obvious to all that the war was a catastrophe, but to admit this was to admit that all the lives lost had been lost pointlessly. And no country would confess that.

However, after a year of pain, suffering and enormous loss, the UK must reach for new solutions to the COVID-19 problem and any future respiratory disease outbreaks. We must learn from errors, acknowledge the harms of the measures we have taken and account for them moving forward. We now need a more holistic, measured approach.

Many international studies bear out that lockdowns have proven to be a complete failure as a public health measure to contain a respiratory virus. They did not succeed in their primary objective of containing spread yet have caused great harm.

Lockdowns were explicitly not recommended even for severe respiratory viral outbreaks in all pandemic planning prior to 2020, including those endorsed by the WHO and the Department of Health. The reasons for ignoring existing policies and adopting unprecedented measures appear to have been (i) panic whipped up by the media (especially scenes from China), (ii) a reluctance to do things differently to neighbouring countries and (iii) the unfaltering belief in one single mathematical model, which latterly turned out to be wildly inaccurate (Imperial College, Neil Ferguson).

We must find the courage to do things differently and to admit mistakes. The USA is leading the charge here, with more and more states turning their backs on lockdowns and mask mandates.
Moving forward, we would recommend the following steps:

  1. Reinstate the existing pandemic planning policies from 2019, pending a detailed review of the policies adopted in 2020. Look to countries and states which did things differently. There should be a clear commitment from the Government that we will never again lockdown.
  2. Stop mass testing healthy people. Return to the principles of respiratory disease diagnosis (the requirement of symptoms) that were well researched and accepted before 2020. Manufacturers’ guidelines state that these tests are designed to assist the diagnosis of symptomatic patients, not to ‘find’ disease in otherwise healthy people.
  3. Stop all mask mandates. They are psychologically and potentially physically harmful whilst being clinically unproven to stop disease spread in the community and may themselves be a transmission risk.
  4. Vaccination. Abandon the notion that vaccine certification is desirable and that children should be vaccinated. There is no logical or ethical argument for either.
  5. Devise a public education programme to help redress the severe distortions in beliefs around disease transmission, likelihood of dying and possible treatment options. A messaging style based on a calm presentation of facts is urgently needed.
  6. A full public enquiry into the extent to which severe/fatal COVID-19 is spread in hospitals and care homes. There is stark recent evidence on this from Public Health Scotland 3 and if true for the rest of the UK, there needs to be better segregation of COVID-19 patients and staff within these settings.
  7. More funding and investigation of treatments for COVID-19, instead of only focusing on vaccination as a strategy. Given the high rates of hospital transmission, encourage a drive for more early treatment-at-home using some of the protocols discussed herein.
  8. Divert funds. The not inconsiderable money saved from ceasing testing programmes can be diverted to much needed areas, such as mental health, treatment research and an increase in hospital capacity and staffing. The vast debts accrued during 2020 will also need to be paid off, a fact that seems to be worryingly absent from economic recovery plans.

Read our full review of the evidence here >
Our group of scientists, medics and public health experts have put together this rigorously and widely researched document. Topics included are:

  • COVID policies and harm to children – Professor Ellen Townsend; Dr Karen Neil
  • COVID-19 vaccination in children – major ethical concerns – Dr Ros Jones
  • Vaccine passports – an ethical minefield – Dr Malcolm Kendrick
  • Asymptomatic spread – who can really spread COVID-19? Dr John Lee
  • Economic impacts – the true cost of lockdowns – Professor David Paton; Professor Marilyn James
  • Mutant strains and the futility of border closures – Dr Gerry Quinn
  • ‘ Zero Covid’ – an impossible dream- Professor David Livermore
  • Masks – do the benefits outweigh the harms? – Dr Gary Sidley
  • Psychological impact of the Government’s communication style and
    restrictive measures – Dr Damian Wilde
  • Lockdowns – do they work? – Professor Marilyn James
  • Mortality data & COVID-19 – Joel Smalley
  • The ONS Infection Survey: a reevaluation of the data – Dr Clare Craig; Dr Paul Cuddon
  • Promising treatment options – Dr Ros Jones; Dr Edmund Fordham
  • Care homes – we must do better for the most vulnerable in society – Dr Ali Haggett
  • Ethical considerations of the COVID-19 response – Professor David Seedhouse"
I think a lot of that is with the benefit of hindsight. Mass testing of asymptomatic people may not be the best strategy for covid-19 - and I don't know if it is or it isn't, do we have sufficient empirical data on asymptomatic people yet and their role as a vector? - but a novel virus with so many unknowns...? How do you know? And they ARE funding treatments. AND vaccines. Again - novel virus. You belt and you brace, because it's NEW. We were wrongfooted in our initial response to covid because we treated it like flu. When the next virus emerges, treating it like covid may prove similarly shortsighted. I don't know how anyone can say that, in future, we should respond to new unknown viruses differently, based on how we responded to this new unknown virus. The next one is likely to have its own quirks, just as covid does, vs flu.

You can't, incidentally, make a mistake in your original post, have someone point out that it's a bit rich to accuse others of getting tangled - then go back and correct it, and unabashedly continue your attack. Neither can you post-rationalise a statement you made using data, then state that the person THAT ASKED YOU FOR THE DATA is unscientific. Nor can you defend 'I didn't see many cars' as a scientific observation. It was simply an observation when you made it, and remains an observation now.

Like I said.

Tangled.
 
Last edited:

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,262
Reaction score
3,062
Location
edzell
Its quite impressive how the virus seems to avoid the 15 to 25 year age group compared to the ones either side.


Screenshot_20210319-150211.png
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,544
Reaction score
3,037
Its quite impressive how the virus seems to avoid the 15 to 25 year age group compared to the ones either side.


View attachment 58731
Can you toggle it to deaths to see if the shapes stay the same? I wonder if that audience is less inclined to get tested, given the knowledge they're probably 'safe'. Parents of under 14s are naturally cautious.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,262
Reaction score
3,062
Location
edzell
Can you toggle it to deaths to see if the shapes stay the same? I wonder if that audience is less inclined to get tested, given the knowledge they're probably 'safe'. Parents of under 14s are naturally cautious.
Just for you Saffy.
A very telling chart.
Personally, i think its because most are asymtomatic and we are now only seeing it in under 15s because of school testing.
But if that is the case, then over the last year, there must have been a huge amount of uncounted asymtomatic cases.
It certainly makes you wonder why we seem to think it nessesary to vaccinate the entire population.
Screenshot_20210319-151721.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top