Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
We are still some way from knowing whether or not the lockdown, as it was implemented, was necessary.
https://www.israel21c.org/lockdown-only-made-corona-crisis-worse-claim-experts/
I'll post hospital figures later but ICU had a short period (days) at 75% occupancy, then never got above 50%. All extra facilities installed to cope with the virus were never used. Many staff are getting stressed out with not being able to get tested, one colleague rang in yesterday positive, he shared a small changing room that maybe 100 people use......social distancing is impossible and not implemented nor followed in the hospital anyway.
https://www.israel21c.org/lockdown-only-made-corona-crisis-worse-claim-experts/
I'll post hospital figures later but ICU had a short period (days) at 75% occupancy, then never got above 50%. All extra facilities installed to cope with the virus were never used. Many staff are getting stressed out with not being able to get tested, one colleague rang in yesterday positive, he shared a small changing room that maybe 100 people use......social distancing is impossible and not implemented nor followed in the hospital anyway.
Electric_Andy
Heavy Metal Fan
- Location
- Plymouth
"According to the model, if a country adopts a policy of social distancing as much as possible, including at work; 14 days self-quarantine of every person with symptoms such as fever or cough; testing all individuals with symptoms; and hygiene measures including facemasks in public places, then in most cases there is no need for a lockdown."
Wasn't that based on testing all individuals with symptoms though? Which we aren't doing. It also supposes that everyone follows the lockdown rules, which we as a country aren't doing either. I'm not claiming to be an armchair expert, but models can be extremely good providing that they take into account sociological discrepancies such as people still bending the rules to suit them?
I spent the last few years of my career working on groups where the NHS and local government were supposed to work together on various health issues, including the reduction of winter deaths. Mrs R's job also involved much the same, albeit at a higher level than me. Anyway, the result was that we got very used to dealing with excess death figures and explaining them to various organisational and political leaders.
I have never seen anything remotely like this, and it is not even winter. The totals are bad enough but to see such 'all deaths' figures within the space of three weeks as opposed to a 'bad season' over an entire winter summed from less elevated figures; well, it is just jaw-dropping.
I have never seen anything remotely like this, and it is not even winter. The totals are bad enough but to see such 'all deaths' figures within the space of three weeks as opposed to a 'bad season' over an entire winter summed from less elevated figures; well, it is just jaw-dropping.
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
Cases were doubling every three-four days pre-lockdown.
If we'd left it another week, we could easily have peaked at 4,000 daily deaths, not 1,000. That would have overwhelmed the NHS.
If we'd implemented a week earlier, it might only have been 250.
The countries claimed not to have lockdowns all either have significant social distancing and an extensive test and trace policy - which is only effective if case numbers are low so as not to overwhelm the system.
We tried voluntary social distancing for a week or so and it was a disaster. The alternative *at that point* was lockdown or 100s of thousands of deaths. Of course, if we'd acted sooner, and more seriously, we could have been in a position more like Germany.
The evidence seems to be that even with our lockdown, we have only just suppressed the virus, with Ro estimates around 0.6 to 0.8.
Not disagreeing with that Andy but as of now, we don't know whether or not a lockdown (as was implemented) or the threat of one, alongside social distancing and improved hygiene might have been better. I am beginning to see an unpleasant reaction to the lockdown in and around the hospital.
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
I think it was very clear in the week before lockdown here that the voluntary requests not to attend bars, resaurants, social gatherings were being ignored. Well, worse than that actually, they were being treated as a last chance to party before lockdown!
Electric_Andy
Heavy Metal Fan
- Location
- Plymouth
Yeah true. It might be that now we are more prepared (Nightingale hospitals etc) a relaxation of the lockdown would be ok. But I just don't trust a fair minority of the British public. Relaxation to some means it's all over and carry on as normal.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Does anyone else feel that the minute's silence part way through this crisis is a bit premature and wonder whether it's Dom's latest distraction from today's ONS stats release? The pictures of ministers standing around for the silence made me think I'd rather they spent even that minute working on sorting out the PPE shortages. Respect is great but will it save lives?
Andy in Germany
Guru
- Location
- Rottenburg am Neckar
It also puts pressure on people who know they need to keep isolating to go back to normal, and could provide a convenient excuse to stop supporting them.
We also have to remember that a second outbreak is likely; Germany seems to already be assuming one will come in winter of this year.
matticus
Guru
(my bold) Yes, my interpretation of the evidence (so far) is that "full" lockdown was not what tipped the balance in the UK - voluntary social distancing and extra hygiene did. I put the Oxford Uni report in a separate thread: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/peak-infections-occurred-before-full-lockdown.260300/
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I saw only a repeat of the Daily Mail. Where's the Oxford University report, please?
matticus
Guru
One professor explained the data in that link - he's talking about an Oxford study. The Mail didn't do the study.
Another professor (also from Oxford Uni) was interviewed on More or Less (which think I referenced in that post?); he reported on work done by the same unit (IIRC it's the Evidential Medicine Unit). Also, not a study by the Mail.
https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/research/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine
(I have no control over what the Daily Mail publishes, sorry!)
Last edited:
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
A couple of points. Firstly, given the timescales for incubation, deconvoluting the effect of a week's voluntary measures from the subsequent lockdown is pretty much impossible.
Second, that if we now have Ro of ~0.7, it must be almost certainly case that the voluntary measures, which were obviously not working as intended, would not have delivered the Ro of <1 required.
I see no link to an Oxford Uni report anywhere?
