Coronavirus outbreak

[PK99]

I think it avoids the point rather than deals with it!

Is it still arch-conservative Tim Montgomerie in charge at the sinisterly-misnamed "unherd"? Anyway, it's no surprise when such a deeply establishment-elite site defends the establishment. As yet, Cummings's lockdown-busting isn't on their home page, but the Prof Gupta one is both lead headline and "Don't miss"!

A deeply disappointing ad hominem response rather than addressing the point made - but this is cycle chat, after all, i should not be surprised.

 

[mjr]

A deeply disappointing ad hominem response rather than addressing the point made - but this is cycle chat, after all, i should not be surprised.

Oh come on. That ultra conservative elite AstroTurf "unherd" site has been cited a couple of times this week as if it's a serious and balanced publication. Someone was always going to point out it's a British Breitbart wannabe and that's the best defence you can muster? I bet you're disappointed that the central politburo propaganda department has been spotted for what it is.

It wasn't ad hominem anyway because I attacked no one for just being who they were - I attacked their awful actions - but I expect someone will now complain it's pedantic to point out that lie!

And what point was made anyway? It seemed to be that there's a gibberish piece defending the government, which I dealt with.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

That calculation is dealt with in the article:
https://unherd.com/thepost/how-much-difference-would-an-earlier-shutdown-have-made/

So it’s not as simple as lockdown a week earlier –> two fewer doublings –> 75% reduction in deaths. If we’d moved the entire process forward by a week — school closures, behaviour changes, everything — that might have done it; but a lot of behaviour change was driven by seeing what was happening elsewhere. Britons saw Italy and China and became rightly scared. It’s not easy to see how we’d have brought that forward.

In their report, More or Less addressed another point, which is that the model also assumes that an earlier lockdown would have been as fully complied with as the one that actually happened; a big assumption, given that a week earlier, people might not have been so scared. That caveat hasn’t made it into any of the other coverage.

None of this is to say that an earlier lockdown would not have saved lives. It almost certainly would. But the stark claim that it would have prevented 75% of deaths — 30,000, so far — is wildly overconfident and I think should be reported with far more uncertainty; the true figure could be much lower.

How on earth does that "deal" with the point.

Far from "dealing" with it, it merely caveats it.

Let's say it's only half as bad as the basic model suggests. Thay would still mean a week earlier would have saved half of those lost.

And if we'd done what Greece did (yes. GREECE, that model of good governance, actually followed WHO guidance), we'd have saved 90% of those lost and already be out of lock down.

 

[silva]

Add in that, as we all saw, lockdown was ignored by more and more people as time went on so if we’d gone in earlier, many would have been coming out earlier.

More and more? Heh, day 1 after politicians announced forced closures of shops/companies, people fleed en masse to shops to empty racks. Alike that wasn't predictable. How ignorant / stupid can politicians be? Or weren't they, and did they want to help the virus to spread? Feel free to chose...

 

[srw]

Oh come on. That ultra conservative elite AstroTurf "unherd" site has been cited a couple of times this week as if it's a serious and balanced publication.

Just because you don't like the person making the claim doesn't mean they're not making a decent point. Actually I think they are. A claim of one week earlier --> 75% fewer deaths is oversimplistic, for exactly the reasons set out by the website you decry.

 

[Milzy]

More and more? Heh, day 1 after politicians announced forced closures of shops/companies, people fleed en masse to shops to empty racks. Alike that wasn't predictable. How ignorant / stupid can politicians be? Or weren't they, and did they want to help the virus to spread? Feel free to chose...

They went for the original herd immunity plan, there's nothing more to say.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Just because you don't like the person making the claim doesn't mean they're not making a decent point. Actually I think they are. A claim of one week earlier --> 75% fewer deaths is oversimplistic, for exactly the reasons set out by the website you decry.

Too often people take a particular stance on an issue, which may or may not be valid, and then lean too heavily on statistics/data from sources that support that stance.

 

[silva]

They went for the original herd immunity plan, there's nothing more to say.

I was talking about the country I live in, BE. No such plan here.

 

[mjr]

Just because you don't like the person making the claim doesn't mean they're not making a decent point. Actually I think they are. A claim of one week earlier --> 75% fewer deaths is oversimplistic, for exactly the reasons set out by the website you decry.

That'll be why it wasn't the claim made. Of all people, I thought you'd understand the uncertainty of "strongly suggests" better than that.

As I wrote earlier, that article avoids the point. It uses whataboutery and accusations of misreporting but without much basis for either, except for the author's waffle.

 

[srw]

Of all people, I thought you'd understand the uncertainty of "strongly suggests" better than that.

No. "Strongly suggests" is far too strong. "Might be the case if you make a lot of simplifying assumptions" is as strong as I would be happy to go.

 

[Tanis8472]

Blimey

 

[Slick]

Blimey

View attachment 524562

View attachment 524563

Its been removed now.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Blimey

View attachment 524562

View attachment 524563

Whoever did that was clearly acting on their instinct. Well done!

 

[rualexander]

Promising news on the vaccine development situation (if you're a Rhesus Macaque anyway).
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/bidm-bvp051920.php

Also covered in the latest video from Dr John Campbell, as is the news from the Oxford vaccine programme.


View: https://youtu.be/DdIIwNyB1AA

 

[Tanis8472]

Its been removed now.

It was gone within minutes of me seeing it