Anti lockdown rally

[Randy]

Right, I don't disagree with that, never had, never would, but that wasn't my point was it? The one you keep glossing over or failing to reply to.

The reason you wrote it (on an anti "lockdown" thread) was from a point of view of "we have no problem now", "we don't need to keep current restrictions", and I was trying to get you to look ahead at what could happen.

So I asked:
There was in March 20, and in August 20 too, but there wasn't in April - May 20 or October 20 to March 21.
It's not where we are, it's where we could be heading.

So, if you could go back in time, would you have posted that comment in March 20 or August 20? Knowing what came in April - May 20 or October 20 to March 21? I trust your stance hasn't changed much.

Nice to see you're now acknowledging the dashboard, good for you Maybe you should listen to the people on Twitter who maintain it.
Will you acknowledge ONS too and the excess deaths in April 20, May 20, December 21, Jan 21? The "anti lockdown" stance caused a massive chunk of it, I'd rather it didn't happen again.

@Laughing was spot on.

You can join

Blaming people against lockdowns for deaths is a corker.

 

[Randy]

So are you saying if Texas had the “delta“ variant it would be a different story?

It's already in the USA but not as widespread even though it's highly transmissible.

Coronavirus: Is the Indian variant in the US?

What need you need to know about the ‘more transmissible’ variant of Covid in the US

www.google.com

 

[Andy_W]

So are you saying if Texas had the “delta“ variant it would be a different story?

Yes, but the degree of which is unknown. To get to a UK level of growth it would be needed to be seeded at the same levels and have a lot of other factors working against it like the UK has.

The bigger question is do you think it wouldn't be any worse? Have you not seen the news or any data from the past three months?
Delta is now over 90% of our cases, it makes Alpha look like small fry (USA is mainly Alpha I think, from memory).

Delta is more transmissible per case and has more hospitalisations per case, so it could not have been better, it's impossible.

 

[Andy_W]

Blaming people against lockdowns for deaths is a corker.

They are, of course they are, if UK govt didn't pander to those against lockdowns (like the far-right, anti maskers and even clowns like Farage and BJ), then we would have *drum roll* locked down earlier. Lockdown earlier = less death.

I get that might not sit comfortably with yourself, but you're the one that never sees the merit in lockdowns (or even light restrictions), if you take those away deaths go up. Do them earlier, deaths don't peak anywhere near as high, and you get out earlier. Keep fighting it and you make it worse.

It's class how you raise a crap point, which easily gets batted away and then you ignore it (repeatedly), and then go and raise another crap point.
Fart in a lift much?

 

[Andy_W]

It's already in the USA but not as widespread even though it's highly transmissible.

USA is a month or two behind on the level of Delta, and was well ahead of us on vaccine second doses up to last week, and had been since mid-January, albeit we've taken over in the last week or so.

Effectively when we let it in on mass, we had about 10% double vaxed, USA now have about 40%, so hopefully Delta doesn't replace Alpha as fast. I think they will stay ahead of it, they have a massive head start on where we were (it's like me trying to catch Usain Bolt), the same will apply to a lot of places, good for them

Airline rules/ deomographics/ current climate/ seasonality/ proximity etc, all playing a part too

The good thing for the UK is much of the South has had a head start on the North/ North West too (albeit a much lesser degree than USA), so we might not get the rise down South that the North/ North West has, which is important to places like London with younger age groups and a lot of minorities.
R might be turning now to show this (and general vaccines rising), but still early days to have full confidence. Hopefully it does and we will get some real certainty on July 19th, looking forward to a "proper" night out.

 

[the_smog_chorus]

They are, of course they are, if UK govt didn't pander to those against lockdowns (like the far-right, anti maskers and even clowns like Farage and BJ), then we would have *drum roll* locked down earlier. Lockdown earlier = less death.

I get that might not sit comfortably with yourself, but you're the one that never sees the merit in lockdowns (or even light restrictions), if you take those away deaths go up. Do them earlier, deaths don't peak anywhere near as high, and you get out earlier. Keep fighting it and you make it worse.

It's class how you raise a crap point, which easily gets batted away and then you ignore it (repeatedly), and then go and raise another crap point.
Fart in a lift much?

You're of the opinion that lockdowns work, may I remind you that is just your opinion and it is not a fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest they work and plenty to suggest they do not. There are even people who aren't far-right anti maskers that are against lockdowns.

 

[Muttley]

there is plenty of evidence to suggest they work and plenty to suggest they do not.

There really isn't any evidence to suggest they don't work.

The virus transfers from human host to human host, fact. So very simply, if you remove the number of times that humans are in contact with each other you limit the transmission rate. If a variant infects with a hit rate of 20% within 2m then you would have to be within 2m of 5 people to pass it on once. This is simple maths and logic. So you limit the number of people meeting. Jesus this stuff has been out there for a year. Why do we have to go "Janet and John" to explain it still?

Here's another fact. NO ONE LIKES BEING LIMITED IN SOCIAL CONTACT, NO ONE LIKES LOCKDOWN OR WEARING A MASK. Some of us read the science and the statistics and see the logic in the restrictions. So blaming those supporting the restrictions is quite frankly embarrassingly juvenile. Blame the people whose chaotic management of the situation has placed us here by inaction, incompetence and self interest. (No further clues)

 

[SmallTown]

You're of the opinion that lockdowns work, may I remind you that is just your opinion and it is not a fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest they work and plenty to suggest they do not. There are even people who aren't far-right anti maskers that are against lockdowns.

I don't think I've seen evidence to suggest they don't work? Maybe you can enlighten me. I've seen plenty of countries that have locked down where it has worked.

 

[Randy]

There really isn't any evidence to suggest they don't work.

The virus transfers from human host to human host, fact. So very simply, if you remove the number of times that humans are in contact with each other you limit the transmission rate. If a variant infects with a hit rate of 20% within 2m then you would have to be within 2m of 5 people to pass it on once. This is simple maths and logic. So you limit the number of people meeting. Jesus this stuff has been out there for a year. Why do we have to go "Janet and John" to explain it still?

Here's another fact. NO ONE LIKES BEING LIMITED IN SOCIAL CONTACT, NO ONE LIKES LOCKDOWN OR WEARING A MASK. Some of us read the science and the statistics and see the logic in the restrictions. So blaming those supporting the restrictions is quite frankly embarrassingly juvenile. Blame the people whose chaotic management of the situation has placed us here by inaction, incompetence and self interest. (No further clues)

To be fair Mutt there are plenty of folk who have enjoyed lockdown and aren't bothered how long it continues, none on here as far as I can tell.

But agreed, how this government are still in charge and haven't been removed still staggers me.

 

[the_smog_chorus]

There really isn't any evidence to suggest they don't work.

The virus transfers from human host to human host, fact. So very simply, if you remove the number of times that humans are in contact with each other you limit the transmission rate. If a variant infects with a hit rate of 20% within 2m then you would have to be within 2m of 5 people to pass it on once. This is simple maths and logic. So you limit the number of people meeting. Jesus this stuff has been out there for a year. Why do we have to go "Janet and John" to explain it still?

Here's another fact. NO ONE LIKES BEING LIMITED IN SOCIAL CONTACT, NO ONE LIKES LOCKDOWN OR WEARING A MASK. Some of us read the science and the statistics and see the logic in the restrictions. So blaming those supporting the restrictions is quite frankly embarrassingly juvenile. Blame the people whose chaotic management of the situation has placed us here by inaction, incompetence and self interest. (No further clues)

There are over 30 published papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy (despite unconscionable harms). Your basic explanation is just your opinion and you are entitled to it.

If you see the logic in restrictions today then fine, I do not and think the Government have got it wrong.

 

[Andy_W]

There really isn't any evidence to suggest they don't work.

The virus transfers from human host to human host, fact. So very simply, if you remove the number of times that humans are in contact with each other you limit the transmission rate. If a variant infects with a hit rate of 20% within 2m then you would have to be within 2m of 5 people to pass it on once. This is simple maths and logic. So you limit the number of people meeting. Jesus this stuff has been out there for a year. Why do we have to go "Janet and John" to explain it still?

Here's another fact. NO ONE LIKES BEING LIMITED IN SOCIAL CONTACT, NO ONE LIKES LOCKDOWN OR WEARING A MASK. Some of us read the science and the statistics and see the logic in the restrictions. So blaming those supporting the restrictions is quite frankly embarrassingly juvenile. Blame the people whose chaotic management of the situation has placed us here by inaction, incompetence and self interest. (No further clues)

Perfect reply

If only common sense was more common.

 

[Andy_W]

To be fair Mutt there are plenty of folk who have enjoyed lockdown and aren't bothered how long it continues, none on here as far as I can tell.

But agreed, how this government are still in charge and haven't been removed still staggers me.

I don't know anyone that's enjoyed it (lockdown or the restrictions), it's done my head in, but I'll still back it as it's been worth it/ necessary, I just wish we could have done it sooner so it would have been shorter.

Most of all, I wish we had some competent "leadership" and even more a population that would show major disapproval at bad leadership.
Bizarrely BJ and his clowns were up in the approvals not long back, so some must think they're doing a good job

 

[Andy_W]

There are over 30 published papers finding that lockdowns had little or no efficacy (despite unconscionable harms). Your basic explanation is just your opinion and you are entitled to it.

If you see the logic in restrictions today then fine, I do not and think the Government have got it wrong.

Did you not see the wave drop after we enforced each "lockdown", or did we hit herd immunity each time? What about in Spain, Italy, New York etc?
Did you not see the wave go back up after we ended "lockdown" for Christmas?

The idea is to also use the "lockdown" as a preventative measure (which we didn't do), and to stop cases overwhelming healthcare (which it barely managed).

You mention (unconscionable harms), you think adding more covid helps those? Do you think maxing out covid and maxing out healthcare makes that better?

The government have got it wrong, largely by not listening to "the science" and not acting early enough.

 

[Muttley]

Your basic explanation is just your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Please show me where I am wrong. Transmission of a virus, any virus is from host to host. For the virus to transfer there has to be a method of transfer (air born, water born, skin to skin contact, etc.) and there has to be a receptive host.

This isn't complicated.

Stating that there are 30 studies is just 30 against the overwhelming scientific and empirical evidence that restricting social contact through lockdown or lesser restrictions does work. You are either being wilfully obtuse or in denial.

 

[the_smog_chorus]

Please show me where I am wrong. Transmission of a virus, any virus is from host to host. For the virus to transfer there has to be a method of transfer (air born, water born, skin to skin contact, etc.) and there has to be a receptive host.

This isn't complicated.

Stating that there are 30 studies is just 30 against the overwhelming scientific and empirical evidence that restricting social contact through lockdown or lesser restrictions does work. You are either being wilfully obtuse or in denial.

It is complicated, there are lots of factors, it isn't as black and white as you think but as I have said you are entitled to your opinion.

There are lots of good examples where restrictions have been lifted, in a time of much lower vaccination rates, with no discernible impact at all.

 

[bear66]

It is complicated, there are lots of factors, it isn't as black and white as you think but as I have said you are entitled to your opinion.

There are lots of good examples where restrictions have been lifted, in a time of much lower vaccination rates, with no discernible impact at all.

Belarus are a great example of reducing number of deaths without lockdowns. In fact they seem to reduce deaths by inventing numbers. If only other countries could keep us all safe by inventing numbers.

It used to be 5 a day, but now it's 10 a day. In fact you commented how well they are doing!

Belarus - loose LD doing great

 

[Redwurzel]

Ref the new deadly Delta Variant we are told it spreads really fast - its been in this country at least 9 weeks, so why haven't tens of thousands being hospitalised with it

In March /April 2020 after 5 weeks of the weaker Kent variant we had 20,000+? in UK hospitals and nearly half of them on ventilators. We had severe lockdown in late March and April 2020.

The only conclusion to me is that vaccination and anti bodies are doing a very good job.

 

[MolteniArcore]

It is complicated, there are lots of factors, it isn't as black and white as you think but as I have said you are entitled to your opinion.

There are lots of good examples where restrictions have been lifted, in a time of much lower vaccination rates, with no discernible impact at all.

It would be lovely if you could provide us with one of these many 'good examples' to which you refer?

 

[the_smog_chorus]

Belarus are a great example of reducing number of deaths without lockdowns. In fact they seem to reduce deaths by inventing numbers. If only other countries could keep us all safe by inventing numbers.

It used to be 5 a day, but now it's 10 a day. In fact you commented how well they are doing!

Belarus - loose LD doing great

View attachment 20026

What's your point? My point was if we believe lockdowns work then when we come out of them we should see a rise in 'cases'.
Iowa, Texas & Mississippi dropped all their restrictions back in March (Feb for Iowa) and some believed this would lead to a huge spike in 'cases' and hospitalisations. There are plenty of other examples with similar trends. By the way Texas (not sure on others) has the 'delta' variant.


In regards to Belarus - I have a very good friend and know a fair few people who live there and have visited myself, they think we're insane in our approach.

 

[the_smog_chorus]

It would be lovely if you could provide us with one of these many 'good examples' to which you refer?

See reply to Bear