Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

Sweden didn't overwhelm their hospitals either, with simple social distancing, hand washing, and other light-touch measures.

Same goes for the Motherland (Japan).
Sweden based their plans on the premise that Swedes would do what the government told them to without much complaint and that social distancing could be maintained that way.

Britain based their plans that after a few months the British would kick up a fuss, bitch, complain, and eventually a minority would stop obeying social distancing measures.

And I think I see a bit of a problem with the idea of Britain trying to follow the Swedish model. The first thing you would have to do to implement the Swedish model in Britain is to somehow replace all the British with Swedes.
 
Here is a piece from Dr Mike Yeadon who is the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D.

  • PCR tests absolutely hopeless and the number of false positives is absurd.
  • He supported the first lockdown but now has totally changed opinion.
  • Government seems to have no model of what sort of second wave is expected.
  • Government still refuses to discuss the extent of false positives.
  • When "cases" are adjusted for expected positivity the growth is massively less inflated and I would say matches the growth in fatalities
For about 2 months, the rate of positive tests in Scotland was around 0.5%, then over the last week or so it has ramped up to about 7.5% today. This cannot be explained purely by false positives.
 
At least be honest with yourself. The false premise is that there is a trigger number of deaths that should result in people being locked in their homes. Those are your words, not any proposals by any Government anywhere in the world that I am aware of.


dear god, but I’m losing the will to live. Can you think of a reason why the latter didn’t happen? Do you think it might be something to do with the very thing you’re moaning about? Restrictions?


Tell me who has suggested staying in their house forever.

but there clearly is a trigger. 20,000 from flu is not enough, but a number for COVID was. What was that number?
I’m not moaning about restrictions, or saying they are ineffective, I just want to know what the trigger for them is. The scientific grounding.

Those wanting zero risk are wanting people to stay in their houses forever. If nobody wants this then they are accepting people must be exposed to the risk of infection and death for life to continue. I want that level of risk to be articulated. After today’s briefing it is clear that it has been decided people should work from home and not socialise. How many lives is that predicted to save? If It can’t be articulated, what premise is it being based upon?
 

JCC

War Hero
For about 2 months, the rate of positive tests in Scotland was around 0.5%, then over the last week or so it has ramped up to about 7.5% today. This cannot be explained purely by false positives.

Has anything changed with their testing regime? Do you have any data on the number of cycles being carried out, and if that has changed?
 

AfricaExpat

Old-Salt
For about 2 months, the rate of positive tests in Scotland was around 0.5%, then over the last week or so it has ramped up to about 7.5% today. This cannot be explained purely by false positives.

To get the government doubling every week level apparently requires 4% prevalence. I won't link to a tweet but on September 21, Yeadon wrote regarding this;

"The.. ONS timeline shows that even at the height of the spring pandemic, we were never close to that value. ONS showed 0.05-0.07% most of the year edging up to 0.11% latest. 4% is EIGHTY times higher than July for example. Utterly implausible."

I would have to be in the trade but 7.5% sounds impossible in a general population.
 
There is no misunderstanding. You put up a strawman argument about “locking people in their houses until they die of something else”.

Why are you so fixated on trying to elicit an answer to a false premise? The reason for lockdown in Spring was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by a large number of very sick people, not because there was a trigger value of the number of people expected to die.
There was a trigger of sick people then. I saw the numbers, and the numbers of beds. There was never an overwhelm. If all of the nightingales were reinvigorated, we could probably allow for some of today’s restrictions to be rolled back because sick people could be treated.
 
I'd wait till we reach about 60k and then install a lockdown. The other 20k would be the residual deaths.

Maybe 70k with 10k residual.

My social care policy would be good afterwards though (much more cash to spend on the elderly through pension savings/NHS costs).
How would that work from a mathematical standpoint with an infection that grows at an exponential rate in a period of days and death lag that is measured in weeks or months? By the time you measured 60,000 (or 70,000) you would have many times that already in the pipeline that you hadn't seen yet. It's not like you can just turn off the tap at will.

And as I said in my previous reply, in the part of the post that you did not respond to, the UK is already projected to exceed your 80,000 deaths target this year by a considerable measure.
 
but there clearly is a trigger. 20,000 from flu is not enough, but a number for COVID was. What was that number?
if you are so sure there is a trigger based on a number of deaths, rather than a judgement based on the potential impact on the health system, then please show some evidence for this. I haven’t seen any or heard anyone use those terms.

I’m not moaning about restrictions, or saying they are ineffective, I just want to know what the trigger for them is. The scientific grounding.
The trigger, as I am sure you will remember, was the judgement that a large number of people would require emergency treatment, and hence there was a need to “flatten the curve”

Those wanting zero risk are wanting people to stay in their houses forever. If nobody wants this then they are accepting people must be exposed to the risk of infection and death for life to continue. I want that level of risk to be articulated. After today’s briefing it is clear that it has been decided people should work from home and not socialise. How many lives is that predicted to save? If It can’t be articulated, what premise is it being based upon?
Who are these people who are wanting zero risk?
 
Last edited:
And I think I see a bit of a problem with the idea of Britain trying to follow the Swedish model. The first thing you would have to do to implement the Swedish model in Britain is to somehow replace all the British with Swedes.

Ach, rubbish.

The Swedish scientists realised it was a marathon, not a sprint, so implemented policies that they knew they could stick to for the long term.

It's no good going for a sprint, like the UK did, and then attempt to change tactics to a marathon.
 
To get the government doubling every week level apparently requires 4% prevalence. I won't link to a tweet but on September 21, Yeadon wrote regarding this;

"The.. ONS timeline shows that even at the height of the spring pandemic, we were never close to that value. ONS showed 0.05-0.07% most of the year edging up to 0.11% latest. 4% is EIGHTY times higher than July for example. Utterly implausible."

I would have to be in the trade but 7.5% sounds impossible in a general population.
I am talking about 7.5% TEST positivity. That is the figure quoted in todays Scottish Government daily update. Clearly, that is a very different thing to 7.5% prevalence in the population, which I assume is what you are referring to.
So, 2 months with about 0.5% test positivity, followed by a week or so where the test positivity has ramped up daily to 7.5%. As I said, this cannot be solely false positives.
 
For about 2 months, the rate of positive tests in Scotland was around 0.5%, then over the last week or so it has ramped up to about 7.5% today. This cannot be explained purely by false positives.
The test positivity rate in Ontario tripled during September from about 0.3% to 0.99%, and this accompanied a rising count in number of infections. An increase in measured number of infections cannot be explained by increases in testing when the positivity rate is increasing significantly as well. There has also been an increase in hospitalisations going along with this as well by the way, so the COVID-19 hasn't somehow magically become more benign either.
 
Ach, rubbish.

The Swedish scientists realised it was a marathon, not a sprint, so implemented policies that they knew they could stick to for the long term.

It's no good going for a sprint, like the UK did, and then attempt to change tactics to a marathon.
Public health officials in Canada have also been saying that "it's a marathon, not a sprint", those words exactly, right from the beginning. No serious figure in public health that I have seen has been saying anything else.
 
if you are so sure there is a trigger based on a number of deaths, rather than a judgement based on the potential impact on the health system, then please show some evidence for this. I haven’t seen any or heard anyone use those terms.


The trigger, as I am sire you will remember, was the judgement that a large number of people would require emergency treatment, and hence there was a need to “flatten the curve”


Who are these people who are wanting zero risk?
Ok, let’s define the metric then, if not deaths, what was the “potential impact on the health system” that was the trigger then? The health system was not overwhelmed, there was significant spare capacity, especially with the nightingales. Why is there no intent to use this spare capacity and minimise restriction? At what point will the impact on the health system be too great? Is there a metric or number or not?
 

anglo

LE
Face shields aren't intended as a substitute for masks. They're intended for people who have to deal face to face with highly infectious people, such as nurses who are taking test samples. The face shield is for when the patient coughs the person wearing the face shield doesn't get sprayed with virus laden droplets all over their face an in their eyes. If you need a face shield, you probably need a higher grade mask to go with it.

People strutting about with a face shield but no mask are quite frankly clueless. I've seen one or two.
I have COPD, a mask restricts my breathing, so, I choose to wear a face shield
I go in shops only when it can't be avoided, I have not been in a supermarket
since the start of the lockdown,
So, think on before you criticize people,
 
Ok, let’s define the metric then, if not deaths, what was the “potential impact on the health system” that was the trigger then? The health system was not overwhelmed, there was significant spare capacity, especially with the nightingales. Why is there no intent to use this spare capacity and minimise restriction? At what point will the impact on the health system be too great? Is there a metric or number or not?
You would have to put those questions to the best prime minister ever*

*copyright whey_aye_banzai
 

JCC

War Hero
I've given you a projection from a leading public health research centre. Let's see your figures then for where the UK is headed, and let's see them directly from a reputable research organisation and not third hand from someone's blog.
Rather than plough back would you republish the source URL please?
 
Public health officials in Canada have also been saying that "it's a marathon, not a sprint", those words exactly, right from the beginning. No serious figure in public health that I have seen has been saying anything else.

Which is why the Swedes chose the policy they introduced. They knew their policy had to be SUSTAINABLE for the long term.

Unlike the UK's policy.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Sweden didn't overwhelm their hospitals either, with simple social distancing, hand washing, and other light-touch measures.

Same goes for the Motherland (Japan).

There was a story going around that the Swedes were very concerned when the government insisted on a two metre rule. Being good citizens and believing in their government, the people put up with it until the problem receded and they could go back to their normal social distancing of five metres.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top