So glad Build is back.
4 Likes
I get that the BBC and the Metro are pretty under-the-radar websites, and difficult to search, but the accurate information is out there if you’re prepared to search for it.
11 Likes
Part of that is true. The water wasn’t good. But people had been congregating by it for years. The reason the police dyed it when they did was because, “ this type of gathering is in contravention of the current instruction of the UK Government.With this in mind, we have attended the location this morning and used water dye to make the water look less appealing."
Then there was all the other stuff the police were doing to stop people enjoying themselves outdoors. The drones filming walkers and so on
Yes countries with a bigger and higher density of population. Where the spread was already out of control and also how the leaders of those countries went about lockdowns, Boris took ages to bring one in. Also look at smaller countries like New Zealand (a population of 5million to Sweden’s 10million) that had some of the harshest lockdown and border rules and only had 53 deaths.
So by saying a throw away statement like 11 countries that DID lock down did worse, is very misleading, if you are not going to include all the facts and differences why and include places where lockdowns DID work.
2 Likes
So there was a problem with a bunch of fucking idiots swimming in toxic water, and then when the NHS was starting to look like it was being overwhelmed and these fucking idiots are still swimming in toxic water, the dye was re-applied to try to keep people safe.
Maybe start another thread (on another forum) to campaign for the rights of those who want to swim in bleach.
1 Like
I’m not going to fight for the bleach swimmers. Or the antivaxxers. But what I am going to say is that the evidence coming in suggests that lockdowns didn’t really work. So far it’s just one study - although it is a study of multiple data sources from around the world. Maybe it will be contradicted by other studies and I’ll say I’m wrong. But at the moment I think that they cost and wrecked more lives than they saved
Evidence please?
1 Like
“Just a feeling but Ive been right about this sort of thing before “
7 Likes
The Johns Hopkins study suggests that lockdowns prevented 0.2% of Covid deaths. Put that against cancelled operations, tumours going undiagnosed and so on and it’s a very fine balance. Nothing like Sage’s predictions. But I’m not a scientist so I could be talking bollocks. I’ll wait to see what happens when the wider scientific community analyse the work and when new studies come in.
Prevented 0.2% of Covid deaths? You don’t need to read anything to know that is utter bollocks.
They fucked up with care homes, imagine if they stopped restrictions surrounding the vulnerable, think it would have been at lot more than 0.2%.
2 Likes
Lot of these types around.
1 Like
Again there were other factors you are not including with your statements.
Published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia, the England-wide survey of all NHS surgery patients reveals the high risk of death among patients who acquire COVID-19 during or immediately after their hospital stay. The analysis found that while only 1.1 per cent of patients acquired the infection at the time of their operation, where patients did succumb to the virus, the mortality rate was extremely high. Overall, surgical patients who became infected with Covid were five times more likely to die within 90 days of their operation.
I don’t know enough about this to argue scientific papers. The study I saw in the press said lockdowns reduced deaths by just 0.2%
Maybe when there’s more clarification on the study and it’s either supported or refuted I’ll come back to this thread and say ‘I was wrong,’ or ‘I told you so.’
But for now I’ll leave the floor open to Sotonjon.
You might want to read your own linked articles a little closer before posting.
“The study was written by economists, not epidemiologists, and was based on a review of 34 other studies published by July 1, 2020, during the early part of the global pandemic.”
That’s all I need to know thanks.
Not written by Doctors, and only took into account the first lockdown, and from the quick skim read, was taking into consideration numerous countries and not specifically the U.K.
You can’t seriously say that you believe lockdowns don’t work when it’s based of that bullshit.
6 Likes
Well it is a meta-analysis. Wouldn’t economists at John Hopkins University be appropriately trained to collect and review the conclusions of each study included?
There were several doctors and epidemiologists who were opposed to mass lockdown and argued for alternative public health strategies such as focused and localised measures which protected the most vulnerable. Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org)
There were British doctors such as Carl Heneghan and Sunetra Gupta who argued against lockdown policies from April 2020, citing issues such as neglect of the elderly, isolation of the vulnerable, the problems facing care homes, missed diagnoses etc.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/15/lockdown-debate-skewed-sceptical-scientists-shunned-social-media/
The data taken from the Imperial Group consistently overestimated the likely number of fatalities and compelled the government to act pre-emptively on this data. Looking back at lockdown: how we got it wrong (telegraph.co.uk).
Even so, we’re still one of the first European countries to end lockdown restrictions.
And ours was chill as fuck compared to Spain for example.
1 Like
Yeh true.
All I’m saying as that if you take care homes for example.
Even the useless Brian’s that were in charge of our lockdown saved people’s lives at least in care homes even after the original fuck up with measures in place so to say it saved a poultry 0.2% of preventable deaths is bullshit / disrespectful to all of us.
In Spain you had to have documents to go get food. Same in Oz. Had friends in both places.
1 Like
I think you’re right. At the time when we had no vaccine, no immunity in the population, and no idea of how things would play out, lockdown was the only option.
There’s a lot of people using the benefit of hindsight to make arguments for what we should have done.
The fact is you can’t directly compare other countries for reasons others have already stated - different population density, different behaviours, different culture, different politics, different climate, etc…
4 Likes
Yeh it definitely wasn’t anywhere near as strict here. I think it says something about this country that a proper lockdown wouldn’t work.
Another point is that it’s hard to compare with alternate scenarios as we don’t know how we would have fared in the absence of any lockdown measures