Jump to content

Andyregs

Members
  • Posts

    10,340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Andyregs

  1. These were shown to the MPs who are part of the CRG. They had the same response as me. There's very little cost benefit analysis and very little looking to the future and I don't just mean next year. Plus 2 of them are produced by the government so they're hardly going to be damning are they? So you’re arguing that the government didn’t consider the wider impacts but won’t accept documents where they do because they were produced by the government? That’s some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics.
  2. Have you read these? They literally tell us nothing. There's no real understanding of the long term impact. They are literally papers explaining the wider range of impact of the COVID and the government response. What you mean is you don’t agree. What evidence would you accept to show they had considered the wider impact if a government paper titled ‘Coronavirus and the impact on output in the UK economy’ and ‘Analysis of the health, economic and social effects of COVID-19 and the approach to tiering’ aren’t enough. Because they literally show that the wider impact had been considered. Just take your pick because this is getting ridiculous. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/publications?:uri=peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/publications&:uri=peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/publications&:uri=peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/publications&filter=article&filter=compendia&page=1 everything from business to mental health, to ethnicity, to pollution, to schools, carere, gdp, prices, etc etc.
  3. You keep pretending that you haven’t been shown that what you say is just not true. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944823/Analysis_of_the_health_economic_and_social_effects_of_COVID-19_and_the_approach_to_tiering_FINAL_-_accessible_v2.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925856/S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/coronavirusandtheimpactonoutputintheukeconomy/april2020
  4. “...to counter the protest”. Apologies if I made the assumption that ‘counter the protest’ made them ‘counter protestors’.
  5. My point is to question what made them terrorists. What did they do there to be given that label especially Considering the capitol riots were mearly a scuffle and there were nazis there who killed someone.
  6. What are they? I’m not sure you have thought this one through.
  7. As is the current pandemic. Not sure of your point. That we put things in place to ensure that.
  8. So comparing America and New Zealand would be better then? I can source an article from the bmj where they compare Sweden to its neighbours. The last pandemic was in the 50s , HK flu, we didn't do anything then. A far less deadly pandemic than the Spanish flu. Not sure your point.
  9. Not really. It's a valid example of how history looks back on its actions and wonders why on earth they did as they did. It's happened throughout history and will continue to happen. So if I show good decision 100 years ago then that makes the response correct? It doesn’t prove anything. Maybe look at relevant comparisons such as the last pandemic which your expert either didn’t know about or chose to ignore because it didn’t fit what she wanted to say.
  10. Sweden’s death rate is 5-10 times that if it’s neighbours by the way. You’ve just told me that science isn’t enough evidence wise?
  11. Harking back to a war 100 years ago to prove the pandemic response was wrong. Might as well tell me that people used to think the world was flat. Checkmate.
  12. I’ve given you sources from the bmj and lancet. You have now decided that scientific evidence isn’t what’s needed. But yes I’ll continue to bury my head in the sand.
  13. The Guardian have been massive supporters of this all along. I won't take their maybe, might be story as evidence that we weren't prepared for a pandemic. Of course you won’t. It’s written elsewhere that the plans we had were not sufficient though. Ignore them all of you like. Maybe find something on your blog that allows you a different reality. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/03/government-documents-show-no-planning-ventilators-event-pandemic In fact the planning that was done showed we were not ready in terms of ventilators or icu beds. Yet you wanted to let the virus spread in constrained until it overran the nhs. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/amp/ I wholeheartedly agree. Look what happened to the Germans when they were coerced into doing things for the 'greater good '. It's a dangerous precedent in my opinion. Ah yes. Saving people’s lives. Just like the Holocaust. Definitely not a conspiracy theorist.
  14. Funny how everyone has seen bidens fall even though no one reported it. But perhaps people took more interest in trumps story because of the very reason you complain about. Hypocrisy. Trump spent all last year talking about biden being unfit for the job physically and mentally. Remember when Hilary fell, and the worlds media reported it. What was trumps reaction. Not one of a normal human being thats for sure. Trump himself made it a big story because he constantly attacked others for it. When the topic is directed back at him, you all play the victim again. It’s pretty pathetic.
  15. Use the Pandemic plan that was fully planned and prepared for an event exactly like this. Not the on the hoof lockdown plan with about 5 minutes consideration. Once again reality disagrees with you. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/did-the-uk-government-prepare-for-the-wrong-kind-of-pandemic The problem it seems is that we didn’t divert off the plan quickly enough.
  16. But surely the best way to prove that lockdowns work is to compare those places where they have been used and those places where they haven't or very little? If the actual real life evidence, rather than scientific theory, contradicts that assumption then surely it's time to look at things again. Please debate with respect rather than the sanctimonious/mocking tone that you tend to use by default. When you claim the scientific evidence shows you’re right, then when confronted with scientific consensus you say that we don’t need scientific evidence, then I’ll treat it with the contempt it deserves. But ok New Zealand had 26 deaths, America is over 500,000. See how easy that is to pick data that fits what I want. We give up our ‘rights’ every single day to protect ourselves and others. I can’t have a drink then drive. Some people can’t because of health conditions. The list is endless.
  17. But where's the comparison to those countries and states that didn't have harsh lockdowns? California v Florida, South Dakota v North Dakota? There are more examples. Very different ways of managing the virus but very similar outcomes. Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were asking about scientific evidence. I didn’t realise the bmj, lancet and nature just make things up without bothering about pesky evidence. You mentioned something about changing the goalposts...
  18. The scientific consensus? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext “In the initial phase of the pandemic, many countries instituted lockdowns (general population restrictions, including orders to stay at home and work from home) to slow the rapid spread of the virus. This was essential to reduce mortality, prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission following lockdown. Although lockdowns have been disruptive, substantially affecting mental and physical health, and harming the economy, these effects have often been worse in countries that were not able to use the time during and after lockdown to establish effective pandemic control systems. “ I could keep quoting: “Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection,4 and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID.“ But it’s worth reading the whole thing. The bmj? https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2679 ““We know widespread lockdowns work, and what remains to be seen is how a local one will in the UK,” said Keith Neal, emeritus professor of the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham.” shall I go on https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7 “By comparing the deaths predicted under the model with no interventions to the deaths predicted in our intervention model, we calculated the total deaths averted in our study period. We find that across 11 countries 3.1 (2.8–3.5) million deaths have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic” By all means share similar well respected sources as the lancet, bmj, and nature that mirror your view if the evidence is so obvious.
  19. Looking at it another way. Would you want a vulnerable elderly relative receiving intimate care from someone who had refused the vaccine. Never suggested it was everyone. Would you believe, there are also people who think the government are psychologically programming us in order to lockdown the country just because ‘everyone else is doing it’. It’s madness I know.
  20. I liked the look of bahamboula (not sure I spelt it correctly), when we played Oldham.
  21. Yeah but bill gates is trying to track them with the vaccine and 5G for some unknown reason, while they type away on their mobile phones.
  22. First Fox News and tucker Carlson, and now Sidney Powell. ‘No reasonable person would believe her’.
  23. Don’t forget all those terrorists storming the beaches of Normandy.
×
×
  • Create New...