Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

21 - 40 of 171 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
These threads (there’s at least one everywhere there’s a community) serve to illustrate 2 things.

First we all sit somewhere on the empathy to psychopathy line. We simply see the same thing differently


Second we all suffer from confirmation bias - it’s so easy to google using your bias as the search term and find just what you need to support the bias.

Short of a time machine we ain’t going back to see what a ‘no UK lockdown’ would have panned out to so the only way is forward from here. It is what it is.

I’m just grateful this thread doesn’t have the Bill Gates, 5G, ‘them’, ‘sheep’, ‘wake ups etc nonsense in it.

What is worth doing is listen to ‘Inside Health’ and ‘The NHS Front Line’ podcasts BACKWARDS and get an objective feeling for the rate of change in what we know, what was thought and what we still don’t know. Inside Health is excellent journalism. The front line has some ‘BBCism’ but still objective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,913 Posts
Because the truth is, for the vast majority, personal experience of the virus other than how the lockdown is directly affecting them, has been a nonentity.
How would you feel if your personal freedom cost 500,000 deaths? Would you be OK with that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
How would you feel if your personal freedom cost 500,000 deaths? Would you be OK with that?
[/QUOTE

How would you feel if you were one of the 500,000 deaths.

How would your surviving relatives feel.

Who would buy all those pints of beer, restaurant meals etc if there had been no lockdown

What level of fear would there be in the community.

Guess what, the earth is flat (because I'm too lazy or stupid to understand any level of science and rational thought) but I have a hunch.
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
How would you feel if your personal freedom cost 500,000 deaths? Would you be OK with that?
There is no way I can answer such a question because I can't conceive of knowing how I personally caused those deaths or for that matter how anyone else would know.

What is a more interest question to me right now is how @freddym does that or did you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,913 Posts
There is no way I can answer such a question because I can't conceive of knowing how I personally caused those deaths or for that matter how anyone else would know.
Well that’s the trade off. You’re suggesting we shouldn’t have had a lockdown at all.

So how many people were you prepared to sacrifice for this privilege? To the nearest thousand.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
So you’re saying without a lockdown there would be less deaths?
We are second only to the USA in total deaths .. but we have a smaller population so actually double the US death rate.

Are you saying we could have not saved lives even if we'd done it differently?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,913 Posts
Are you saying we could have not saved lives even if we'd done it differently?
I think I’ve been pretty clear all along. A quicker lockdown with stricter rules would have been shorter and with less deaths.

But we chose to dawdle and reap the consequences.

I’m sure there are nuances to the approach, but no-one really knows what those are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,597 Posts
How would you feel if your personal freedom cost 500,000 deaths? Would you be OK with that?
The median figure for the infection death rate is 0.4%, and the generally accepted maximum infection rate is 80%, so with a population of 65 Million gives a figure of around 210,000. We are currently well short of that at around 30% of it, but we have no end in sight.
Nobody can say what the eventual death figure will be, and the effects of the lockdown on other sources of death (either positively or negatively). All we know is that we've slowed the rate.
 

·
Leaf lover
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
I think I’ve been pretty clear all along. A quicker lockdown with stricter rules would have been shorter and with less deaths.

But we chose to dawdle and reap the consequences.

I’m sure there are nuances to the approach, but no-one really knows what those are.
Well it has been said already elsewhere that the focus should have been solely on those that were considered most vulnerable. And I say to people where is the hardship in Richard Glover being told to self isolate, shield or whatever. But why should my children and their children and your children and their children have to have restriction placed on them.
Yes a number of people would have become fearful and changed their behaviour but we certainly would not have anything like the hysteria/ madness we have now.
Our government needs to accept that this has got out of hand and get the country to pull itself together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,403 Posts
Because the truth is, for the vast majority, personal experience of the virus other than how the lockdown is directly affecting them, has been a nonentity.
Is not COVID-19 being a nonentity for most of us a measure of the success of lockdown?

My concern is that may be no more goodwill left to endure lockdown again. It is going to be a major problem if we have a second wave as a result of a leaky end to this session of lockdown and/or a botched attempt at measures to help a return to near normal shoving R0 above 1 again.

Seen it already today during the weekly shop with two women having a two metre conversation and catch up just inside a supermarket. I suggested to them that they could have the conversation outside and pointed to the queue waiting to enter to shop. The reply I got was 'I could but I am not going to'. I walked off as there was no point in replying to somebody with that mindset.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
Well it has been said already elsewhere that the focus should have been solely on those that were considered most vulnerable. And I say to people where is the hardship in Richard Glover being told to self isolate, shield or whatever. But why should my children and their children and your children and their children have to have restriction placed on them.
Yes a number of people would have become fearful and changed their behaviour but we certainly would not have anything like the hysteria/ madness we have now.
Our government needs to accept that this has got out of hand and get the country to pull itself together.
You aint seen noting yet.

The false premises know no limits in the minds of those that have a adopted certain extreme positions.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
I could be wrong here, but if the "curve" was lowered but stretched, couldn't the end number of excess deaths actually be similar to no lockdown with a short higher curve ? so actually, wasn't the lockdown more to do with protecting the NHS - ie not making it bleeding obvious to everyone that for a lot of years, our politicians have repeatedly ignored pandemic warnings. I guess the NHS coping saved some extra lives, but who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Yes a number of people would have become fearful and changed their behaviour but we certainly would not have anything like the hysteria/ madness we have now.
Our government needs to accept that this has got out of hand and get the country to pull itself together.
Let’s think that through... no lockdown - we had R value of 3. Infections would have increased exponentially. Hospital capacity would have been overwhelmed with 7-10 days of R value at 3. Then... Hundreds of thousands would have died, most without any hope of access to treatment.
I don’t think any government that allowed that to happen could reasonably expect to survive long.

I think more than a few would have changed behaviour...

Edit I mean 7-10 additional days without action to reduce the R value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
I could be wrong here, but if the "curve" was lowered but stretched, couldn't the end number of excess deaths actually be similar to no lockdown with a short higher curve ? so actually, wasn't the lockdown more to do with protecting the NHS - ie not making it bleeding obvious to everyone that for a lot of years, our politicians have repeatedly ignored pandemic warnings. I guess the NHS coping saved some extra lives, but who knows.
Around 10-20% of symptomatic infections result in hospitalisation. Overwhelming healthcare capacity not a good look.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
26,362 Posts
Let’s think that through... no lockdown - we had R value of 3. Infections would have increased exponentially. Hospital capacity would have been overwhelmed with 7-10 days of R value at 3. Then... Hundreds of thousands would have died, most without any hope of access to treatment.
I don’t think any government that allowed that to happen could reasonably expect to survive long.

I think more than a few would have changed behaviour...

Edit I mean 7-10 additional days without action to reduce the R value.
What is the value of going to hospital?

I have asked this before and people are too chicken scared to even look for the answer.

What is the difference in survival rates between those that are admitted to hospital when they get to a certain level of critical condition, and those that are not if they reach the same level of critical condition?

I mean, we should have that data because other countries are not so helpful towards their sick populations, right? Ergo, other countries will have a higher death rate ....

If it makes no difference to survival rates if a covid victim goes to hospital or not, then don't admit them.

My question; what difference does it make?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
so you're agreeing ?
I agree the government failed to invest in pandemic preparedness and failed to build adequate health capacity.

The problem with letting the infection run through the population unchecked is that we run out of capacity to treat people quickly. To be clear. Most people who are hospitalised can be treated and need not die. If we run out of capacity that cannot happen and many more die unnecessarily.

Stretching and lowering the curve allows more to be successfully treated. Failing to do that would have been quite negligent.
 
21 - 40 of 171 Posts
Top