So, coronavirus...

[Muttonbird]

It's going to get ugly in the Northern Hemisphere this winter if the attitude of Covid-deniers here is anything to go by.

[Enzedder]

Aussie health expert in Sweden reveals truth about so-called 'success story'

"Allowing a deadly virus to just spread in the hope of eventual 'herd immunity' made no sense to me scientifically, given our then limited knowledge, and it absolutely made no sense to my ethically," he told news.com.au.

The Swedish strategy, Steadson says, relied on two false assumptions – that the virus could be stopped and that it was not as deadly as feared.

According to New Scientist, Sweden's rate of infection is 8200 per million people (Australia's is around 1000 per million) with a death rate of 57 deaths per 100,000 people, compared with just five in Norway and 11 in Denmark. Australia's current deaths per 100,000 people is 3.1.

Steadson says the pandemic in Sweden is not close to being over.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/a ... 1599762338

The truth is probably half-way between this and Tegnell's version

[Northern Lights]

These assaults on our liberty are a step too far
There should be more anger about Covid restrictions being rushed through with no discussion or parliamentary scrutiny

Iain Martin
Friday September 11 2020, 12.01am, The Times
Tyranny and arbitrary rule do not always come wearing jackboots and a uniform. “Sometimes they arrive wearing a business suit, mouthing platitudes about public safety,” says a former cabinet minister who cannot believe the assaults a supposedly Tory government is making on our liberties in its war on Covid-19.

This week the government is at it again with its capricious rule-making. From Monday there is a Christmas-destroying ban on gatherings of more than six, although simultaneously the same ministers want us to get back on trains and into offices where it is normal to encounter far more than six people.

Alongside this latest curb on free association we are to be introduced to a new concept in public order enforcement: the Covid-19 marshal. These American-sounding figures will not be able to arrest us — yet — but they will break up socialising and remind us not to be naughty.

So effective has been the incessant taxpayer-funded propaganda in creating fear that a majority of voters say they want to be bossed around even more. When the pollster YouGov asked this week whether there was support for a nationwide curfew to forbid Britons from leaving their homes between 10pm and 5am, 62 per cent of the general population approved. Some 75 per cent of over-65s back the idea.

Do not be surprised if a curfew is government policy by next week, given this administration’s addiction to opinion polling, data-mining and following focus groups. But such a move would be a monstrous imposition, particularly on the young, who let’s face it are most likely to be out and about after 10pm.


They are not at serious risk, remember, from this disease unless they have an underlying health condition. According to the Office for National Statistics, Covid-19 deaths between the ages of 15 and 44 total 568. Deaths of those aged 85 and above stand at 22,075.

Even short of a curfew, the young are being targeted remorselessly. Universities are restricting the movements of their paying charges. At Oxford, students are being asked to sign “responsibility agreements”, often with little clarity on what these mean. Confused authorities on the ground look at the government’s stern edicts and, presumably, want to avoid being sued in the event of an outbreak.

No wonder there is confusion and a tendency to err on the side of draconian impositions when the government behaves as it does. What is law? And what is mere advice or guidance? Hardly anyone seems to know, so the creeping precautionary assumption is towards restriction rather than reopening.

SPONSORED
The 10-piece capsule collection you need to elevate your style
The 10-piece capsule collection you need to elevate your style
The business school that is disrupting the education industry
The business school that is disrupting the education industry
All this is to combat a disease that will this year kill around a third of the number of Britons who die every year from cancer.

I must stress I am not a Covid denialist and I am not libertarian, either. As someone who spent 14 weeks in a strict isolating household I am aware this is a serious disease best avoided. But what began as a perhaps understandably robust response in March is morphing into a concerted curtailing of our liberties that is out of proportion to the risks and increasingly sinister.

Taken individually, certain restrictions may make a sort of sense of course, until one considers the totality of the regime of rules and the extra-parliamentary way in which this edifice of state control has been constructed.

On Monday I made a rare trip into central London for work, then had dinner with friends where we — don’t tell the authorities — enjoyed ourselves. The signs everywhere on the train said that all passengers must wear a mask or face a £100 fine. When I clocked a £100 spot fine sign for the twentieth time — and yes, I was wearing a mask — the hectoring started to grate. Repeat offenders can be fined £3,200, apparently.

This is imposed via the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020, introduced by statutory instrument in the summer. A blizzard of similarly sweeping regulations has been imposed by executive diktat, with very limited scrutiny under emergency provisions.

The legal blogger Matthew Scott describes the list of 133 pieces of legislation, most introduced without debate, as “mind-boggling”. Political gatherings are now covered. The justice system is at risk. Detention without trial is now extended from six to eight months.

Normally, our parliament would be the defence against tyranny but its activities are so curtailed that little can be done. The House of Commons meets in limited form. The Lords, the ancient revising chamber, has been turned into a virtual hologram with scant room for cross-examination.

It is fashionable to deride parliament but the clue to its indispensability to our way of life lies in its name. Its role is literally to “parley”; to engage in discussion, to test the arguments of those with power over us, to chivvy authority and encourage improvement. That is not happening, amid a deep economic crisis.

None of this is to impugn the motives of individual ministers who are, mostly I’m sure, trying to do their best in a trying situation. Although this week, just as the government suggested it was prepared to break international law it imposed yet more strict laws of its own, which suggests it has one rule for itself and quite another for the rest of us. It’s time we all showed more concern about the escalating threat to our liberties.

[JM2K6]

It is quite remarkable how often people blithely repeat the "they're not at serious risk unless they have an underlying health condition" line without acknowledging just how many people that is, or the fact that it's not just about those people, it's about who they can infect and how fast the infection can get out of control because that's how exponential growth works

[Slick]

Happy times.

Britain’s economy has recovered almost half of the GDP lost at the height of the pandemic after growing for a third month running in July as more lockdown restrictions were eased.

GDP expanded by 6.6 per cent in the month after rises of 8.7 per cent in June and 2.4 per cent in May, leaving output 11.7 per cent smaller than in February, before the pandemic hit. Over March and April the economy shrank 25.6 per cent.

The figures came as Britain secured its first post-Brexit trade deal, with Japan. Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, said that a deal had been agreed in principle in a video call this morning.

July’s bounceback was in line with expectations for monthly growth of 6.7 per cent and puts the economy on track for record quarterly growth of “at least 12 per cent” in the three months to September, the EY Item Club said, after the record 20.4 per cent fall in the second quarter. The economy has now recovered 18.6 per cent since its low in April.

From The Times

[Northern Lights]

Happy times.

Britain’s economy has recovered almost half of the GDP lost at the height of the pandemic after growing for a third month running in July as more lockdown restrictions were eased.

GDP expanded by 6.6 per cent in the month after rises of 8.7 per cent in June and 2.4 per cent in May, leaving output 11.7 per cent smaller than in February, before the pandemic hit. Over March and April the economy shrank 25.6 per cent.

The figures came as Britain secured its first post-Brexit trade deal, with Japan. Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, said that a deal had been agreed in principle in a video call this morning.

July’s bounceback was in line with expectations for monthly growth of 6.7 per cent and puts the economy on track for record quarterly growth of “at least 12 per cent” in the three months to September, the EY Item Club said, after the record 20.4 per cent fall in the second quarter. The economy has now recovered 18.6 per cent since its low in April.

From The Times

Encouraging, will be interesting to see how much further we now recover in light of the new restrictions/pausing of further relaxation. 11.7% smaller is still a whopping contraction though.

[Slick]

Happy times.

Britain’s economy has recovered almost half of the GDP lost at the height of the pandemic after growing for a third month running in July as more lockdown restrictions were eased.

GDP expanded by 6.6 per cent in the month after rises of 8.7 per cent in June and 2.4 per cent in May, leaving output 11.7 per cent smaller than in February, before the pandemic hit. Over March and April the economy shrank 25.6 per cent.

The figures came as Britain secured its first post-Brexit trade deal, with Japan. Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, said that a deal had been agreed in principle in a video call this morning.

July’s bounceback was in line with expectations for monthly growth of 6.7 per cent and puts the economy on track for record quarterly growth of “at least 12 per cent” in the three months to September, the EY Item Club said, after the record 20.4 per cent fall in the second quarter. The economy has now recovered 18.6 per cent since its low in April.

From The Times

Encouraging, will be interesting to see how much further we now recover in light of the new restrictions/pausing of further relaxation. 11.7% smaller is still a whopping contraction though.

Yes, the piece goes into that actually (I can post the full article if you would like) re the eat out scheme and new restrictions etc

[Northern Lights]

Happy times.



From The Times

Encouraging, will be interesting to see how much further we now recover in light of the new restrictions/pausing of further relaxation. 11.7% smaller is still a whopping contraction though.

Yes, the piece goes into that actually (I can post the full article if you would like) re the eat out scheme and new restrictions etc

Thanks but i have a subsciption too so will have a nosey, i do find the Times probably the most balanced out of all the papers, undoubtedly it will have its detractors but on the whole i think they are the best of the bunch.

[Ovals]

People seem to have forgotten that we went into lockdown to "flatten the curve". That means not preventing deaths, but making them occur over a longer period of time. This was all so the NHS could cope.

The current numbers compared to the spike are not even in the same league, so there is no chance of the NHS being overwhelmed. So I don't see the need for the lockdown.

What Lockdown?

And, do you think they should wait until the numbers are back to May levels before they take any action ? Seems rather daft to let it get out of hand again before we take measures to exert some better control. Bigger concern is whether the Rule of 6 will do enough to prevent the need for more drastic action later on.

[Bimbowomxn]

So libertarians are all insane to question the government’s motives, this is all about protecting the NHS.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... view=plain


DNA retention clause, no parliamentary scrutiny......

[Bimbowomxn]

People seem to have forgotten that we went into lockdown to "flatten the curve". That means not preventing deaths, but making them occur over a longer period of time. This was all so the NHS could cope.

The current numbers compared to the spike are not even in the same league, so there is no chance of the NHS being overwhelmed. So I don't see the need for the lockdown.

What Lockdown?

And, do you think they should wait until the numbers are back to May levels before they take any action ? Seems rather daft to let it get out of hand again before we take measures to exert some better control. Bigger concern is whether the Rule of 6 will do enough to prevent the need for more drastic action later on.

4 deaths in English hospitals reported yesterday. It’s nothing like Mays levels. You understand this right ?

[Bimbowomxn]

Not all good/bad governance......

[Slick]

Is it possible that the virus has mutated to a less deadly version? I've no idea, just asking.

[Raggs]

Is it possible that the virus has mutated to a less deadly version? I've no idea, just asking.

Even if there is a less deadly strain, it's 1 strain. A mutation in one virus, will spread from there, but it won't somehow update the trillions of others already spreading around the globe.

EDIT - We have a far better idea of how it acts now, and basically that it attacks the blood, which causes other issues, whereas before it seemed to all be about ventilators, now it seems to very much not be.

[Bimbowomxn]

Is it possible that the virus has mutated to a less deadly version? I've no idea, just asking.

Even if there is a less deadly strain, it's 1 strain. A mutation in one virus, will spread from there, but it won't somehow update the trillions of others already spreading around the globe.

EDIT - We have a far better idea of how it acts now, and basically that it attacks the blood, which causes other issues, whereas before it seemed to all be about ventilators, now it seems to very much not be.

The serious cases would still require hospital beds. Currently this isn’t happening.

[SaintK]

Is it possible that the virus has mutated to a less deadly version? I've no idea, just asking.

Even if there is a less deadly strain, it's 1 strain. A mutation in one virus, will spread from there, but it won't somehow update the trillions of others already spreading around the globe.

EDIT - We have a far better idea of how it acts now, and basically that it attacks the blood, which causes other issues, whereas before it seemed to all be about ventilators, now it seems to very much not be.

The serious cases would still require hospital beds. Currently this isn’t happening.

What isn't happening?
Last NHS daily figure published showed 136 people admitted to hospital with Covid-19
Way, way down on the peak, but still happening

[Saint]

Is it possible that the virus has mutated to a less deadly version? I've no idea, just asking.

Even if there is a less deadly strain, it's 1 strain. A mutation in one virus, will spread from there, but it won't somehow update the trillions of others already spreading around the globe.

EDIT - We have a far better idea of how it acts now, and basically that it attacks the blood, which causes other issues, whereas before it seemed to all be about ventilators, now it seems to very much not be.

The serious cases would still require hospital beds. Currently this isn’t happening.

The numbers of people being hospitalised daily for Covid is increasing daily according to published government stats. But the number in mechanical intubation beds is slightly decreasing; presumably due to better treatment methodology, such as dexamethasone. Overall, the mortality rate for hospitalised Covid19 patients has dropped by approx 30% from the early days when we didn;t know what we were doing.


At the end of the day, the slightly stricter restrictions being put in place now are to prevent us from having to return to the restrictions of March/April/May, and to allow schools/office environments to reopen

[Biffer]

Is it possible that the virus has mutated to a less deadly version? I've no idea, just asking.

Nah, there's massive amounts of genetic analysis being done on it, and there are many small mutations going on, but nothing major (they have to track this to ensure the protein structures etc being targeted by vaccine candidates aren't changing). If there was a significant change it'd be noticed pretty quickly.

[Saint]

Why not look at it this way - what does the uptick in positive tests actually show?

We already know that it takes, in general, between 7 and 14 days for an infected individual to show symptoms - which in the vast majority of cases is still the prompt to take a test. So the significant increase in positive tests is reflective of infections having happened up to 2 weeks ago. We also know that even if you just go by the government reported stats, it will then take 28 days for that uptick in positive tests to potentially show up in the mortality figures; and due to the lag in reporting, it could be as much as another 2-3 weeks before they actually do get reported.

So, we have the first indicator right now of what was happening 2 weeks ago, and there's therefore been further movement likely upwards since then. That gives us two choices:

1 - We can sit on our arses and wait for the mortality figures to bite - but by that time we will really have to implement a much stricter lockdown and stay locked up for a couple of months to stop things getting nasty again

2 - We can collectively accept a marginal increase in restrictions now, which will hopefully get the infections under control but allow us to (more or less) keep going about our daily business.

It would be brilliant if we could have instant cause and effect for this virus, but we don;t - o we have to make changes to policy based on the small indicators that we do have.

[Slick]

Is it possible that the virus has mutated to a less deadly version? I've no idea, just asking.

Even if there is a less deadly strain, it's 1 strain. A mutation in one virus, will spread from there, but it won't somehow update the trillions of others already spreading around the globe.

EDIT - We have a far better idea of how it acts now, and basically that it attacks the blood, which causes other issues, whereas before it seemed to all be about ventilators, now it seems to very much not be.

The serious cases would still require hospital beds. Currently this isn’t happening.

The serious cases from a hypothetical mutation. Idiot

[Slick]

Thanks everyone else, very informative

[Insane_Homer]

3,539 to Boris and Matt, great job R>1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54116939

[Bimbowomxn]

Even if there is a less deadly strain, it's 1 strain. A mutation in one virus, will spread from there, but it won't somehow update the trillions of others already spreading around the globe.

EDIT - We have a far better idea of how it acts now, and basically that it attacks the blood, which causes other issues, whereas before it seemed to all be about ventilators, now it seems to very much not be.

The serious cases would still require hospital beds. Currently this isn’t happening.

The serious cases from a hypothetical mutation. Idiot

The serious cases that are not managed with ventilators mutated or not would still require hospitalisation which still isn’t happening.

[Bimbowomxn]

3,539 to Boris and Matt, great job R>1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54116939

They’ve made terrible mistakes. Blaming them for non serious found by mass testing infections isn’t one of them.

[Bimbowomxn]

3,539 to Boris and Matt, great job R>1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54116939

They’ve made terrible mistakes. Blaming them for non serious found by mass testing infections isn’t one of them.

Meanwhile in planet sensible

[Un Pilier]

Why not look at it this way - what does the uptick in positive tests actually show?

We already know that it takes, in general, between 7 and 14 days for an infected individual to show symptoms - which in the vast majority of cases is still the prompt to take a test. So the significant increase in positive tests is reflective of infections having happened up to 2 weeks ago. We also know that even if you just go by the government reported stats, it will then take 28 days for that uptick in positive tests to potentially show up in the mortality figures; and due to the lag in reporting, it could be as much as another 2-3 weeks before they actually do get reported.

So, we have the first indicator right now of what was happening 2 weeks ago, and there's therefore been further movement likely upwards since then. That gives us two choices:

1 - We can sit on our arses and wait for the mortality figures to bite - but by that time we will really have to implement a much stricter lockdown and stay locked up for a couple of months to stop things getting nasty again

2 - We can collectively accept a marginal increase in restrictions now, which will hopefully get the infections under control but allow us to (more or less) keep going about our daily business.

It would be brilliant if we could have instant cause and effect for this virus, but we don;t - o we have to make changes to policy based on the small indicators that we do have.

Sound post, Saint.

[tabascoboy]

Why not look at it this way - what does the uptick in positive tests actually show?

We already know that it takes, in general, between 7 and 14 days for an infected individual to show symptoms - which in the vast majority of cases is still the prompt to take a test. So the significant increase in positive tests is reflective of infections having happened up to 2 weeks ago. We also know that even if you just go by the government reported stats, it will then take 28 days for that uptick in positive tests to potentially show up in the mortality figures; and due to the lag in reporting, it could be as much as another 2-3 weeks before they actually do get reported.

So, we have the first indicator right now of what was happening 2 weeks ago, and there's therefore been further movement likely upwards since then. That gives us two choices:

1 - We can sit on our arses and wait for the mortality figures to bite - but by that time we will really have to implement a much stricter lockdown and stay locked up for a couple of months to stop things getting nasty again

2 - We can collectively accept a marginal increase in restrictions now, which will hopefully get the infections under control but allow us to (more or less) keep going about our daily business.

It would be brilliant if we could have instant cause and effect for this virus, but we don;t - o we have to make changes to policy based on the small indicators that we do have.

Sound post, Saint.

Very sound, so sound in fact it hasn't been "destroyed" by a strawman one liner yet...

[Bimbowomxn]

Why not look at it this way - what does the uptick in positive tests actually show?

We already know that it takes, in general, between 7 and 14 days for an infected individual to show symptoms - which in the vast majority of cases is still the prompt to take a test. So the significant increase in positive tests is reflective of infections having happened up to 2 weeks ago. We also know that even if you just go by the government reported stats, it will then take 28 days for that uptick in positive tests to potentially show up in the mortality figures; and due to the lag in reporting, it could be as much as another 2-3 weeks before they actually do get reported.

So, we have the first indicator right now of what was happening 2 weeks ago, and there's therefore been further movement likely upwards since then. That gives us two choices:

1 - We can sit on our arses and wait for the mortality figures to bite - but by that time we will really have to implement a much stricter lockdown and stay locked up for a couple of months to stop things getting nasty again

2 - We can collectively accept a marginal increase in restrictions now, which will hopefully get the infections under control but allow us to (more or less) keep going about our daily business.

It would be brilliant if we could have instant cause and effect for this virus, but we don;t - o we have to make changes to policy based on the small indicators that we do have.

Sound post, Saint.

Very sound, so sound in fact it hasn't been "destroyed" by a strawman one liner yet...

Hospitalisations.

[Saint]

Sound post, Saint.

Very sound, so sound in fact it hasn't been "destroyed" by a strawman one liner yet...

Hospitalisations.

They lag positive tests by almost as much as deaths - but government data is showing them start to rise as well

[Bimbowomxn]

Very sound, so sound in fact it hasn't been "destroyed" by a strawman one liner yet...

Hospitalisations.

They lag positive tests by almost as much as deaths - but government data is showing them start to rise as well

Pillar 2 testing figures are delayed that much.

No hospital patients with Covid in England is falling month on month.

[Bimbowomxn]

Oh and Sweden still happy.

[Saint]

Hospitalisations.

They lag positive tests by almost as much as deaths - but government data is showing them start to rise as well

Pillar 2 testing figures are delayed that much.

No hospital patients with Covid in England is falling month on month.

Month on month? You want to wait for a month on month increase before taking action?

Government reported figures clearly show a daily and weekly uptick in hospitalisations, lagging the uptick in positive tests - exactly as would be expected. Deaths will then start to follow likely in a couple of weeks time, but due to reported vs recorded we won't have the true figures for maybe 1-2 months after that.

[Saint]

Oh and Sweden still happy.

Good for them

[Slick]

Oh and Sweden still happy.

Good for them

Every Government in the world “we are quite happy with our strategy”

[Bimbowomxn]

Month on month? You want to wait for a month on month increase before taking action?

Government reported figures clearly show a daily and weekly uptick in hospitalisations, lagging the uptick in positive tests - exactly as would be expected. Deaths will then start to follow likely in a couple of weeks time, but due to reported vs recorded we won't have the true figures for maybe 1-2 months after that.

How much has the weekly admission in England rose ?

How do you explain pillar 2 positives not rising by much ?

Currently the second wave does not exist.

You’re talking about 36 admission now vs 3,000 at the peak.

[Saint]

Month on month? You want to wait for a month on month increase before taking action?

Government reported figures clearly show a daily and weekly uptick in hospitalisations, lagging the uptick in positive tests - exactly as would be expected. Deaths will then start to follow likely in a couple of weeks time, but due to reported vs recorded we won't have the true figures for maybe 1-2 months after that.

How much has the weekly admission in England rose ?

How do you explain pillar 2 positives not rising by much ?

Currently the second wave does not exist.

You’re talking about 36 admission now vs 3,000 at the peak.

Admissions are a fair bit higher than that - but the point is that the trend lines for both testing and hospitalisations are now moving the wrong way, with hospitalisations lagging testing exactlyas expected. So an extremely mild (compared to the full lockdown) tightening of the rules is appropriate to prevent a genuine second wave and the issues that would follow. This way we keep schools businesses, hospitality all open and only suffer mild inconvenience.

If we wait for a month on month increase in deaths we will be effectively working on data with a 6-8 week lag and we will have lost control

[Biffer]

Month on month? You want to wait for a month on month increase before taking action?

Government reported figures clearly show a daily and weekly uptick in hospitalisations, lagging the uptick in positive tests - exactly as would be expected. Deaths will then start to follow likely in a couple of weeks time, but due to reported vs recorded we won't have the true figures for maybe 1-2 months after that.

How much has the weekly admission in England rose ?

How do you explain pillar 2 positives not rising by much ?

Currently the second wave does not exist.

You’re talking about 36 admission now vs 3,000 at the peak.

Admissions are a fair bit higher than that - but the point is that the trend lines for both testing and hospitalisations are now moving the wrong way, with hospitalisations lagging testing exactlyas expected. So an extremely mild (compared to the full lockdown) tightening of the rules is appropriate to prevent a genuine second wave and the issues that would follow. This way we keep schools businesses, hospitality all open and only suffer mild inconvenience.

If we wait for a month on month increase in deaths we will be effectively working on data with a 6-8 week lag and we will have lost control

Bimbo deliberately making numbers up again?

Or shall we give him the benefit of the doubt of a typo, given the last reported civil hospital admission number in England is 136.

A convenient typo from his point of view.

Fortunately I only see his bullshit when other people reply to him.

[Un Pilier]

Month on month? You want to wait for a month on month increase before taking action?

Government reported figures clearly show a daily and weekly uptick in hospitalisations, lagging the uptick in positive tests - exactly as would be expected. Deaths will then start to follow likely in a couple of weeks time, but due to reported vs recorded we won't have the true figures for maybe 1-2 months after that.

How much has the weekly admission in England rose ?

How do you explain pillar 2 positives not rising by much ?

Currently the second wave does not exist.

You’re talking about 36 admission now vs 3,000 at the peak.

Admissions are a fair bit higher than that - but the point is that the trend lines for both testing and hospitalisations are now moving the wrong way, with hospitalisations lagging testing exactlyas expected. So an extremely mild (compared to the full lockdown) tightening of the rules is appropriate to prevent a genuine second wave and the issues that would follow. This way we keep schools businesses, hospitality all open and only suffer mild inconvenience.

If we wait for a month on month increase in deaths we will be effectively working on data with a 6-8 week lag and we will have lost control

Billy Bang On.

Bimbo, you are an intelligent guy. Why do you persist in ignoring this notion of time lags between infection and outcome?

[Bimbowomxn]

Made nothing up. Biffer has.

Bimbo, you are an intelligent guy. Why do you persist in ignoring this notion of time lags between infection and outcome?

I don’t , I see how many positive cases are from hospitals and how many are community. That’s what’s I’ve posted on. There’s no lag on hospital and health care tests being published .

[Bimbowomxn]

All for further measures if they make sense. The 6 people things doesn’t make sense.