MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Pesky jobsworths. Or as I like to call them 'Idiot Tax Collectors' like traffic wardens and speed camera vans.
Wales circuit breaker ends..
- Thread starter Alvez_48
- Start date
Pesky jobsworths. Or as I like to call them 'Idiot Tax Collectors' like traffic wardens and speed camera vans.
1finny
Well-known member
My mate retired this year. They always dreamt of opening a B+B so they did.
Completed the purchase in early March this year in Hay on Wye.
When they eventually got to open he had to close it because he contracted Covid.
Just got going again and the circuit breaker kicked in
The best laid plans eh?
fassy
Well-known member
The masks didn’t stop the spread. The sanitiser didn’t stop the spread. The social distancing didn’t stop the spread. Lockdown didn’t stop the spread. This is a pandemic - it will run its course and you WILL get it. We now have vaccines on the way and more knowledge where it is required. Carry on, be safe for the sake of others and be as normal as you can be.
This will be around for a few years yet guys, lockdowns will be an annual thing.
This will be around for a few years yet guys, lockdowns will be an annual thing.
Randy
Well-known member
When will you learn Alvez?
The only graphs that matter on here come from other posters.
Alvez_48
Well-known member
When will you learn Alvez?
The only graphs that matter on here come from other posters.
I'm terrible I know.. I have more up my sleeve but I'll leave them be. This one was at least related to the topic at hand.
1finny
Well-known member
I'm terrible I know.. I have more up my sleeve but I'll leave them be. This one was at least related to the topic at hand.
To quote the great Jim Moir
’You wouldn’t let it lie’
In case you hadn’t seen this one
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/09/does-lockdown-prevent-covid-deaths/
Laughing
Well-known member
Interesting graph Alvez, however the stringency model used is incomplete. I say this because if you look at, for example New Zealand, which has a lockdown Stringency of 22.22 and the UK which has a stringency of 75 it would suggest, absolutely that lockdown had no impact, in fact, you could conclude that lockdown makes things worse. So I ask myself why that might be.
Firstly, I would assume stringency changes over time, the figures I quoted are from the 5th of this month. This means that dependent on when you measure stringency, the results would, perhaps highlight something completely different. What if stringency was plotted over time against DPM over time, what would that show?
Secondly, define stringency? I looked at the Blavatnik School of Government and it seemed a bit mixed up to me, it didn't really define how stringency is calculated short of saying severity of lockdown measures. For example how many stringency points do you get for closing borders, how many for having open borders with 14 days quarantine. I would want to see how stringency is actually measured before commenting on the graph.
I am not discounting the study, I am saying that I don't know how to interpret the data, it seems a little loose, or dare I say it presented to suite an agenda?
I don't know.
Firstly, I would assume stringency changes over time, the figures I quoted are from the 5th of this month. This means that dependent on when you measure stringency, the results would, perhaps highlight something completely different. What if stringency was plotted over time against DPM over time, what would that show?
Secondly, define stringency? I looked at the Blavatnik School of Government and it seemed a bit mixed up to me, it didn't really define how stringency is calculated short of saying severity of lockdown measures. For example how many stringency points do you get for closing borders, how many for having open borders with 14 days quarantine. I would want to see how stringency is actually measured before commenting on the graph.
I am not discounting the study, I am saying that I don't know how to interpret the data, it seems a little loose, or dare I say it presented to suite an agenda?
I don't know.
1finny
Well-known member
Not sure about stringency at all Laughing.
But, I understand Peru (as one example) had almost a military style lockdown (assume stringent) but has one of the worst death rates.
All a bit confusing
Most of the countries that locked down, did it far, far, far too late, so of course they're going to have massive death and death rates. This isn't the fault of the lockdown, the deaths came because they were too slow to do it and didn't test, track and trace good enough, early enough.
I'll use us, because we're a good example and we live here:
We locked down on 23rd of March I think
Probably takes around a week for lock down to start to take effect on cases due to people living together and the gap between contracting a virus and showing symptoms (so call that around the 30th)
Then it takes about 2 weeks to die (peak deaths average was 14th April, so suggests peak cases was around end of March)
That's one hell of an amazing coincidence if our lockdown "did nothing" do you not think?
Can any of you explain how a deaths per day graph can rise so sharply, and then level off as quickly, within 2-3 weeks of lock down/ measures taken?
That 2-3 weeks marries up practically exactly with the time taken to contract the virus and then die (if death happens), or is that disputed to?
So, that explains the timing of the levelling, now onto the death numbers
By the time that 3 week delay, took effect (around 14th April) we were already on 15k deaths (their card was marked before we even locked down)
A case curve that goes up, also comes down, but coming down takes longer of course, even if it's twice as long then you're adding on nearly twice the deaths, depending on the structure/ area of the curve. So by mid July we were on like 40k deaths, which was effectively a minimum, due to the delay in which we locked down, and the speed of lockdown recovery.
A lock down can't reduce deaths, it's impossible, seeing as they're already dead, and it cant stop people that currently have the virus from dying within another 2-3 weeks. It also can't stop some transmission (so R around 0.9, down from 3). So you get stuck on the high case number and it steadily reducing by 0.9 or whatever it was, for a long time.
A lock down prevents a $hit 40k deaths situation from becoming horrendous. Had we waited another couple of weeks then it would have been multiple times worse, had we done it a few weeks earlier then we would have gotten off a lot lighter.
As for Europe, the same applied to:
France
Spain
Italy
Belgium
+ loads of others
No idea what happened in Peru, no idea what the country is like other than what I've seen on TV. But having been to a few South American countries, I have a few ideas which won't be helping them. From my experience they're not the best at following "rules" and can't imagine that they're the most technologically advanced and don't seem to have great governments. They're also quite skint, have poor healthcare and have tons of people crammed in tight areas and loads of other areas which are completely baron. Not very comparable to here, to be honest.
I'll use us, because we're a good example and we live here:
We locked down on 23rd of March I think
Probably takes around a week for lock down to start to take effect on cases due to people living together and the gap between contracting a virus and showing symptoms (so call that around the 30th)
Then it takes about 2 weeks to die (peak deaths average was 14th April, so suggests peak cases was around end of March)
That's one hell of an amazing coincidence if our lockdown "did nothing" do you not think?
Can any of you explain how a deaths per day graph can rise so sharply, and then level off as quickly, within 2-3 weeks of lock down/ measures taken?
That 2-3 weeks marries up practically exactly with the time taken to contract the virus and then die (if death happens), or is that disputed to?
So, that explains the timing of the levelling, now onto the death numbers
By the time that 3 week delay, took effect (around 14th April) we were already on 15k deaths (their card was marked before we even locked down)
A case curve that goes up, also comes down, but coming down takes longer of course, even if it's twice as long then you're adding on nearly twice the deaths, depending on the structure/ area of the curve. So by mid July we were on like 40k deaths, which was effectively a minimum, due to the delay in which we locked down, and the speed of lockdown recovery.
A lock down can't reduce deaths, it's impossible, seeing as they're already dead, and it cant stop people that currently have the virus from dying within another 2-3 weeks. It also can't stop some transmission (so R around 0.9, down from 3). So you get stuck on the high case number and it steadily reducing by 0.9 or whatever it was, for a long time.
A lock down prevents a $hit 40k deaths situation from becoming horrendous. Had we waited another couple of weeks then it would have been multiple times worse, had we done it a few weeks earlier then we would have gotten off a lot lighter.
As for Europe, the same applied to:
France
Spain
Italy
Belgium
+ loads of others
No idea what happened in Peru, no idea what the country is like other than what I've seen on TV. But having been to a few South American countries, I have a few ideas which won't be helping them. From my experience they're not the best at following "rules" and can't imagine that they're the most technologically advanced and don't seem to have great governments. They're also quite skint, have poor healthcare and have tons of people crammed in tight areas and loads of other areas which are completely baron. Not very comparable to here, to be honest.