Coronavirus outbreak

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
.
Higher tier than necessary = more disruption to economy and social well-being of residents = more negative impacts on residents than necessary

Maybe. It might be that the tiers aren't actually strict enough to control the infection. It seems likely that tier one will result in R>1 from what has happened before, so everyone will end up in at least tier 2 until vaccines arrive.

Hence my logic that if you're lumped in with an innappropriate tier, better a higher one than a lower one.

I'm not at all disputing the negative effects of higher tiers, just that they're better than more corpses.
 

geocycle

Legendary Member
Lancashire is in tier 3 because "While there have been improvements in some areas, case rates and the proportion of tests which are positive for covid-19 remain high. Case rates in over 60s are very high (over 200 per 100,000) in 6 lower tier local authorities. There is still pressure on the NHS in this region."

Carlisle is in tier 2 because "The picture in Cumbria is broadly improving although case rates in Carlisle and South Lakeland are increasing – with increases likely due to a large school outbreak. Case rates in over 60s are above 100 per 100,000 in Carlisle and Barrow-in-Furness. These case rates are too high for allocation to Tier 1 but Cumbria’s trajectory does currently not warrant inclusion in Tier 3."

Hancock's written answer also says "Taken as a whole, the situation in London has stabilised at a similar case rate and positivity to other parts of the country in Tier 2."

Disagree about which evidence they've used, or the action levels they've chosen, if you like (as I do), but they have actually seemed to use some evidence this time.
I understand and agree they have used data, just in a really crude way. Lancaster has values of 90 per 100000 which is less than Cumbria, Liverpool and almost every London borough. By taking it as a whole, Hancock has ignored geographic complexity. Not an easy exercise but could do better.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I understand and agree they have used data, just in a really crude way. Lancaster has values of 90 per 100000 which is less than Cumbria, Liverpool and almost every London borough. By taking it as a whole, Hancock has ignored geographic complexity. Not an easy exercise but could do better.
I've not checked the whole list but I think it's done by county-level area (so unitary council districts are treated as counties for this), which is the level of local government that has Directors of Public Health who used to be responsible for managing pandemics before Hancock panicked and gutted their roles in a centralisation reform earlier this year.

So I think technically it's David Cameron who ignored geographic complexity by abolishing the old regional health authorities and handing their public health functions back to county councils, who were last responsible for public health before WW2. Great moderniser, not at all prone to rose-tinted nostalgia, was Cameron(!)

Hancock's just stuck with Cameron's terrible idea in this way, while making it worse in others by centralising!
 

Accy cyclist

Legendary Member
Bloody disgusting what's going on out there! I've had all my anti lockdown posts deleted in a local paper,while some pro government tit who advocates 25 years jail for those who 'break the rules' is allowed post after post to spout his crap!
Then we have this!!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ancelled-Covid-told-ZOOM-cancer.html#comments
If i was her family i'd be suing the NHS for every penny i could get!
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Bloody disgusting what's going on out there! I've had all my anti lockdown posts deleted in a local paper,while some pro government tit who advocates 25 years jail for those who 'break the rules' is allowed post after post to spout his crap!
Then we have this!!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ancelled-Covid-told-ZOOM-cancer.html#comments
If i was her family i'd be suing the NHS for every penny i could get!
You can't really claim other people are spouting crap and then follow it with a link to the Daily Heil, a newspaper that makes so much shoot up that even Wikipedia dismisses it as unreliable!

I don't really get why you are pro virus anyway. I think I recall reading you've been hard done by a few times, but that's not really a great reason to support humanity's current biggest threat. It probably won't kill those who did you wrong.
 

Accy cyclist

Legendary Member
You can't really claim other people are spouting crap and then follow it with a link to the Daily Heil, a newspaper that makes so much shoot up that even Wikipedia dismisses it as unreliable!

I don't really get why you are pro virus anyway. I think I recall reading you've been hard done by a few times, but that's not really a great reason to support humanity's current biggest threat. It probably won't kill those who did you wrong.
So you're saying that young woman is making it all up?! Oh and 'humanities biggest threat' isn't this 'virus'!
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
You tell me why! Probably because i don't spout left wing sheeple crap!

It seems that we are now seeing 2,384 deaths per day from Covid in the US. The peak was back in May when we hit our all time record of 2,770 deaths in a day. And I would bet that those numbers are actually conservative. If deaths remain at that level it equates to 870,160 deaths per year. It seems that you don't have much problem with that many people dying. And you don't think we should do anything to attempt to bring the death rate down such as wearing masks and keeping people from congregating which is known to spread the virus. Do I have that wrong?
 
Top Bottom