Following the Science?

[Alikado]

Sorry but I lack patience for this conflation of 'government control' with medical restrictions that are necessary but not permanent. To hear and read comments made by the public you would think we were a nation of epidemiologists, statisticians and public health doctors and that lockdown was to be in place forever. Scientists may be annoyingly contradictory at times but I'll take them over Joe (I do my own research on the internet) Public.
It's the same as conflating 'freedom' with not wearing a mask, or vaccine passports as discrimination. Not everyone can have everything all the time so if you choose to not be vaccinated then you should find that there are consequences that you might not like. Some may like to characterise this as discrimination against the poor - phooey to that!
At the moment we are all weary of restrictions but that doesn't mean that they aren't important. When the next pandemic comes the disease may be more infectious, or waterborne, or by contact so let's think of this frankly bl**dy awful last year as a dry run for when something worse comes along. Perhaps by then we can be more clear sighted about what's important.

Yes we are all weary of restrictions, perhaps if unnecessary restrictions were not in place people would accept things more and not break the rules.

[Alikado]

Quote
"So if one person with the coronavirus passes it onto three people, and those three people pass onto three more people for ten cycles, there will be 59,000 infections, he calculated."

https://www.businessinsider.com/coro...20-3?r=US&IR=T

That it with the virus running rampant for several months.

[seivad]

It isn't 1 in 1,000 chance of catching it outdoors it is 1 in 1,000 occurrences occurred outdoors,I'm not talking about attending events I'm talking out a couple of old blokes wandering around a field playing with their balls, there would be more risk to their mental health prohibiting them than the risk of them catching the disease, similarly with kids playing football, BOJO has always been going on about the kids needing to get back to school for their mental health, sport also plays a big part in the kids health and well being.
These sports are naturally social distanced so the chance of catching the virus is even less.

Risk is calculated using real world data on the number of vaccinations / the number of blood clot occurrences. The risk of death from blood clots is calculated the same way. So far the risk of death from clots in the UK is 1 in 1,000,000.

Now that the potential risk of blood clots has been acknowledged, I imagine that the risk of death from clots will decrease. The public has now been made aware of the symptoms of clots, which are easily identified, and they can seek medical help immediately. Death isn't the inevitable conclusion, they are treatable.

I'm glad none of the mental health moaners had to live through 6 years of life at home in the last war. We used to be made of sterner stuff than this.

[local]

Yes we are all weary of restrictions, perhaps if unnecessary restrictions were not in place people would accept things more and not break the rules.

The problem is those determining the "unnecessary" restrictions generally have no idea what they're talking about.

[joan ofarc]

Yes we are all weary of restrictions, perhaps if unnecessary restrictions were not in place people would accept things more and not break the rules.

No, sadly there are many people who can't bear even the slightest restriction because they are all about their rights and not their responsibilities. Inevitably, restrictions will not fit every single circumstance, they are broad strokes and we have to understand that some things will be more onerous for some than for others. It's madness though, for everyone to say I will obey this and not that. You might as well say OK then let's just let the disease rip through the poplulation. No doubt people in the wilds of, say, Scotland are ****** at the same restrictions applying to them as to a big city. Personally, I am more aggrieved at those who have prolonged lockdowns by flouting rules.
There is a lot of work to be done in the realms of civics, being media savvy and having a healthy scepticism of the internet. Scientists too need to get their act together and not give conflicting advice or else we are all doomed to the same conflicting opinions and advice next time.

[Hamble]

It isn't 1 in 1,000 chance of catching it outdoors it is 1 in 1,000 occurrences occurred outdoors, I'm not talking about attending events I'm talking out a couple of old blokes wandering around a field playing with their balls, there would be more risk to their mental health prohibiting them than the risk of them catching the disease, similarly with kids playing football, BOJO has always been going on about the kids needing to get back to school for their mental health, sport also plays a big part in the kids health and well being.
These sports are naturally social distanced so the chance of catching the virus is even less.

" I'm talking out a couple of old blokes wandering around a field playing with their balls, there would be more risk to their mental health prohibiting them than the risk of them catching the disease,"

Nothing to stop them keeping their spirits up at home.

[Hamble]

That it with the virus running rampant for several months.

It means

Quote
“This coronavirus is very, very infectious, so every person passes it to three.

“Now that doesn’t sound like much of a difference, but if each of those three passes it to three, and that happens at 10 layers, I have been responsible for infecting 59,000 people.”

These figures are calculated by raising 1.3 and three to the power of 10.

Dr Montgomery also warned against anyone being complacent and ignoring the government’s advice on social distancing.

“I’m not going to play it down,” he said. “It’s going to be ugly, it’s going to be horrible for a large number of people – but it will be a small number of people who get properly sick and a smaller percentage of those again that need to come to an intensive care unit and we can save the lives of a large number of those people too."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a9419146.html

[Alikado]

It means

Quote
“This coronavirus is very, very infectious, so every person passes it to three.

“Now that doesn’t sound like much of a difference, but if each of those three passes it to three, and that happens at 10 layers, I have been responsible for infecting 59,000 people.”

These figures are calculated by raising 1.3 and three to the power of 10.

Dr Montgomery also warned against anyone being complacent and ignoring the government’s advice on social distancing.

“I’m not going to play it down,” he said. “It’s going to be ugly, it’s going to be horrible for a large number of people – but it will be a small number of people who get properly sick and a smaller percentage of those again that need to come to an intensive care unit and we can save the lives of a large number of those people too."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a9419146.html

That is scaremongering with a sustained R rate of 3

[Hamble]

That is scaremongering with a sustained R rate of 3

?
The R rate only dipped below 3 with a lockdown.

[Alikado]

?
The R rate only dipped below 3 with a lockdown.

The highest the R Rate has been is 1.6 last September.

[said]

Hearsay vs Science.
I’ll take the science. Every time.

GOVERNMENT UK FIGURES:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...s/november2020

BRITISH MEDIAL JOURNAL BMJ
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3431

"Prevention must be prioritised while we wait for a clearer pictureAs many countries face new stay-at-home restrictions to curb the spread of covid-19, there are concerns that rates of suicide may increase—or have already increased.12 Several factors underpin these concerns, including a deterioration in population mental health,3 a higher prevalence of reported thoughts and behaviours of self-harmamong people with covid-19,4 problems accessing mental health services,4 and evidence suggesting that previous epidemics such as SARS (2003) were associated with a rise in deaths by suicide.5

There are many reliable sources for these facts - in particular if you do not read the local news papers.

As for Science - not one of you has listened to scientific reasoning because it criticises your own viewpoints of the situation.

[local]

GOVERNMENT UK FIGURES:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...s/november2020

BRITISH MEDIAL JOURNAL BMJ
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3431

"Prevention must be prioritised while we wait for a clearer pictureAs many countries face new stay-at-home restrictions to curb the spread of covid-19, there are concerns that rates of suicide may increase—or have already increased.12 Several factors underpin these concerns, including a deterioration in population mental health,3 a higher prevalence of reported thoughts and behaviours of self-harmamong people with covid-19,4 problems accessing mental health services,4 and evidence suggesting that previous epidemics such as SARS (2003) were associated with a rise in deaths by suicide.5

There are many reliable sources for these facts - in particular if you do not read the local news papers.

As for Science - not one of you has listened to scientific reasoning because it criticises your own viewpoints of the situation.

I do remember me picking you up on your very much out-of-date science, where I posted the dates for you.

Still how's the Flu rate ?

You expended rather a lot on that, would you care to retract it?

It is abundantly clear you don't understand the science so why do you continue pretending to have any learning outcomes in that area.

As to suicide rates from the BMJ;



Supposition, however, is no replacement for evidence


Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic.


It is still too early to say what the ultimate effect of the pandemic will be on suicide rates. Data so far provide some reassurance, but the overall picture is complex.


https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352


Why post it without reading it ?

[Hamble]

The highest the R Rate has been is 1.6 last September.

Which illustrates exactly in lockdown (till Monday) how it has worked.

[Alikado]

Which illustrates exactly in lockdown (till Monday) how it has worked.

It shows that the source you linked was scaremongering, the R rate has never been anywhere near 3 and the MAXIMUM range only got half way briefly.

[Hamble]

That is scaremongering with a sustained R rate of 3

Quote
"Governments everywhere want to force the R number down from about three (the R number if we took no action) to below one.".................

....The rate at which coronavirus infection is falling in the UK - as measured by the R number - has continued to level off.

The latest R estimate from the government's scientific advisory group Sage, is between 0.7 and 0.9, up slightly from the week before.

It means that, on average, every 10 people with Covid will infect between seven and nine other people.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523