News1 min ago
Was Sweden Right After All?
No compulsory lockdown there. Roundly criticised by its neighbours.
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Having read all of those posts it seems to me that the sooner we get back to normal, the better. We're just gonna have to live with it folks. But the govt want to frighten people. Firstly, we were given daily death figures. These have now dropped to near zero, so BoJo The Clown and his Covid Circus probably thought that people would become complacent and start acting as though there were no restrictions.
Secondly, so as to maintain the scaremongering, the govt then started publishing daily infection figures, which are in the thousands. That's better! Sounds more serious than a handful of deaths doesn't it?!
Thirdly, the emphasis is now on the number of people who want a test but can't get one. That's even better still! And more alarming than figures for deaths and infections combined! And because all the hypochondriacs can't go to the doctors unnecessarily now, they are now flocking to the Covid Testing Centre near you! If you are of average health with no major problems, you have more chance of being hit by a meteorite than dying of CV-19.
APC2604 - stuff all of that in your facemask and chew it!
Secondly, so as to maintain the scaremongering, the govt then started publishing daily infection figures, which are in the thousands. That's better! Sounds more serious than a handful of deaths doesn't it?!
Thirdly, the emphasis is now on the number of people who want a test but can't get one. That's even better still! And more alarming than figures for deaths and infections combined! And because all the hypochondriacs can't go to the doctors unnecessarily now, they are now flocking to the Covid Testing Centre near you! If you are of average health with no major problems, you have more chance of being hit by a meteorite than dying of CV-19.
APC2604 - stuff all of that in your facemask and chew it!
// Folk get entrenched in their own interpretations of statistical information. We can state personal opinion, not much more. //
No doubt, and I'm sure I'm equally guilty of this in my time, but in this case the problem is not the interpretation but the accuracy. It's clearly misleading to compare a pandemic that lasted for something close to 18-24 months to one that has inflicted most of its damage so far, in the UK at least, in a handful of weeks. No amount of "personal opinion" can avoid the simple fact that these are different timescales. Nor, for that matter, can the statement "The 1968 outbreak of “Hong Kong ‘Flu” was higher in its death toll to that which Covid has caused up to now in the UK" be defended as a personal interpretation. It's simply wrong, even taking into account the changes in population.
The arguments that NJ goes on to make are a different matter. Nobody can know for certain what would have happened had the Government decided not to intervene in the way it did when it did: common sense should tell you that more people would have died if the virus were allowed to spread more easily, both because more people would have been infected and because hospitals would have been unable to cope with the excess, but it's hard to be sure about how much greater the death toll would have ended up being.
No doubt, and I'm sure I'm equally guilty of this in my time, but in this case the problem is not the interpretation but the accuracy. It's clearly misleading to compare a pandemic that lasted for something close to 18-24 months to one that has inflicted most of its damage so far, in the UK at least, in a handful of weeks. No amount of "personal opinion" can avoid the simple fact that these are different timescales. Nor, for that matter, can the statement "The 1968 outbreak of “Hong Kong ‘Flu” was higher in its death toll to that which Covid has caused up to now in the UK" be defended as a personal interpretation. It's simply wrong, even taking into account the changes in population.
The arguments that NJ goes on to make are a different matter. Nobody can know for certain what would have happened had the Government decided not to intervene in the way it did when it did: common sense should tell you that more people would have died if the virus were allowed to spread more easily, both because more people would have been infected and because hospitals would have been unable to cope with the excess, but it's hard to be sure about how much greater the death toll would have ended up being.
Who are these people who have consistently declared they won’t abide by the regulations? I can only think of one.
In all of this I think we’re severely neglecting the knock on effects of our approach to this virus - huge numbers likely to die of cancer because of delays in diagnosis or because treatment has been delayed - I’ve seen up to 60,000 mentioned, and then there’s the 750,000 jobs lost, not to mention the psychological effects the lockdown has had on many, and the vulnerable children who have been put at risk. I really believe the cure will prove to be far more severe and far more damaging than the disease.
In all of this I think we’re severely neglecting the knock on effects of our approach to this virus - huge numbers likely to die of cancer because of delays in diagnosis or because treatment has been delayed - I’ve seen up to 60,000 mentioned, and then there’s the 750,000 jobs lost, not to mention the psychological effects the lockdown has had on many, and the vulnerable children who have been put at risk. I really believe the cure will prove to be far more severe and far more damaging than the disease.
well it all depends of course
on what was said and what they said had been said
does anyone remember NJ ( bless! not the only mad judge - in good company with Jon Sumption ) complaining that the london ctr model showed there would be 85 000 deaths in Sweden and there werent. Ergo the good judge said - ditch all computer models no matter what. he later said those comments were - obiter
I do - I said someone had been jacking around with the ctr model - intentionally putting in silly figures and getting silly figures out. Half of AB stuck their fingers in their ears and sang " la la la la"
Todays times:
letter page - crrections - we said ( carried the Times) Imperial College's model "predicted 85000 deaths in Sweden" Comment Sep 16 We have been asked to make clear that the Imperial College made no prediction for Sweden and the figure was a projection by Swedish scientists referencing Imperial modelling for other countries
or in plain speak the Swedish scientists got the program and slapped it about a bit ( cybernetically that is! no violence was actually used)
[which is what I predicted then]
on what was said and what they said had been said
does anyone remember NJ ( bless! not the only mad judge - in good company with Jon Sumption ) complaining that the london ctr model showed there would be 85 000 deaths in Sweden and there werent. Ergo the good judge said - ditch all computer models no matter what. he later said those comments were - obiter
I do - I said someone had been jacking around with the ctr model - intentionally putting in silly figures and getting silly figures out. Half of AB stuck their fingers in their ears and sang " la la la la"
Todays times:
letter page - crrections - we said ( carried the Times) Imperial College's model "predicted 85000 deaths in Sweden" Comment Sep 16 We have been asked to make clear that the Imperial College made no prediction for Sweden and the figure was a projection by Swedish scientists referencing Imperial modelling for other countries
or in plain speak the Swedish scientists got the program and slapped it about a bit ( cybernetically that is! no violence was actually used)
[which is what I predicted then]
going froo a few posts
// "The 1968 outbreak of “Hong Kong ‘Flu” was higher in its death toll to that which Covid has caused up to now in the UK"//
nope
A lot of the technical journals have a letter box sized reading window BUT 1968 - "more than 30 000" and we have got up to 41 000 now. so it is a nop efor that one
// "The 1968 outbreak of “Hong Kong ‘Flu” was higher in its death toll to that which Covid has caused up to now in the UK"//
nope
A lot of the technical journals have a letter box sized reading window BUT 1968 - "more than 30 000" and we have got up to 41 000 now. so it is a nop efor that one
// huge numbers likely to die of cancer because of delays in diagnosis or because treatment has been delayed - I’ve seen up to 60,000 mentioned,// Mystic Meg
this is probably Carol Sikora
" Oncologist for ... Coronavirus tunnel vision has caused the biggest cancer crisis in my lifetime"
as the papers say - others disagree ....
He used to be professor at the Brompton and is now - - at his own centre I think. - I heard him off his specialty, covid testing and antibodies I think.
If like Cardinal Hume you had ca colon for 36 m before presenting it is very unlikely delaying for a further 3 m will have any effect at all.
when my own chemo was delayed for 4 wks for BM depression, the consultant said - "you cant show an effect to delay xc in Hodgkins which you dont have"
( and if I had died I suppose he wd have said - he didnt have a bone marrow for chrissakes)
this is probably Carol Sikora
" Oncologist for ... Coronavirus tunnel vision has caused the biggest cancer crisis in my lifetime"
as the papers say - others disagree ....
He used to be professor at the Brompton and is now - - at his own centre I think. - I heard him off his specialty, covid testing and antibodies I think.
If like Cardinal Hume you had ca colon for 36 m before presenting it is very unlikely delaying for a further 3 m will have any effect at all.
when my own chemo was delayed for 4 wks for BM depression, the consultant said - "you cant show an effect to delay xc in Hodgkins which you dont have"
( and if I had died I suppose he wd have said - he didnt have a bone marrow for chrissakes)
//Yesterday there 20 more deaths in England.//
Out of an average daily total (from all causes) of approaching 2,000. So about 1% (for yesterday, that is - the average figure over the last few weeks is nearer 0.5%). There are now, on average, more daily deaths from suicide(some, no doubt, caused by the effects the anti-Covid measures have had on some people) than from Covid itself.
//Ergo the good judge said - ditch all computer models no matter what.//
The good judge said nothing of the sort.
We can argue over the relative figures for 1968 and now, but that isn't the point I'm trying to make. In 1968, just as at the start of 2020, nobody knew the effect the pandemic would have. It was a nasty, infectious disease which took a lot of lives. Whether it was thirty thousand or forty thousand doesn't really matter - by any measure it was a lot but at the start – just as in early 2020 - the likely total was unknown . But nothing like the measures we see today were ever contemplated. They simply were not. But the government was in equal ignorance of the possible outcome in 1968 as it was in early 2020.
There are now far more daily victims of “Summer ‘Flu” and pneumonia than Covid. Far, far more. But the NHS is at a virtual standstill for non-Covid ailments and there is increasing evidence that this standstill is already causing far more deaths than Covid.
So my point is why, when there were definite similarities between the position the UK faced at the start of the 1968 outbreak and that faced earlier this year, was the reaction so very different? It’s important because I believe that this continuing strategy of shutting things down and keeping vital services in hibernation (I can get my hair cut – for the moment - but cannot see my GP) will cause far more damage than the disease itself.
If the country believes it can continue like this with no serious repercussions until either a vaccine or a cure is found it is in for a profound shock. The beginnings of that shock are already being felt and they will multiply considerably when the furlough scheme ends next month. They will ramp up further when deaths from untreated non-Covid illnesses begin to increase dramatically as they surely will. I haven’t even begun to mention the fact that the most restrictive conditions on life in peacetime have been imposed by no proper Parliamentary scrutiny and have instead been imposed by ministerial edict. When compared to the fuss kicked up over Brexit last year when a similar approach was proposed it makes me chuckle. It is time for Parliament to debate this issue properly because I sincerely believe a change of approach is vital. But that may be a topic for another thread.
Out of an average daily total (from all causes) of approaching 2,000. So about 1% (for yesterday, that is - the average figure over the last few weeks is nearer 0.5%). There are now, on average, more daily deaths from suicide(some, no doubt, caused by the effects the anti-Covid measures have had on some people) than from Covid itself.
//Ergo the good judge said - ditch all computer models no matter what.//
The good judge said nothing of the sort.
We can argue over the relative figures for 1968 and now, but that isn't the point I'm trying to make. In 1968, just as at the start of 2020, nobody knew the effect the pandemic would have. It was a nasty, infectious disease which took a lot of lives. Whether it was thirty thousand or forty thousand doesn't really matter - by any measure it was a lot but at the start – just as in early 2020 - the likely total was unknown . But nothing like the measures we see today were ever contemplated. They simply were not. But the government was in equal ignorance of the possible outcome in 1968 as it was in early 2020.
There are now far more daily victims of “Summer ‘Flu” and pneumonia than Covid. Far, far more. But the NHS is at a virtual standstill for non-Covid ailments and there is increasing evidence that this standstill is already causing far more deaths than Covid.
So my point is why, when there were definite similarities between the position the UK faced at the start of the 1968 outbreak and that faced earlier this year, was the reaction so very different? It’s important because I believe that this continuing strategy of shutting things down and keeping vital services in hibernation (I can get my hair cut – for the moment - but cannot see my GP) will cause far more damage than the disease itself.
If the country believes it can continue like this with no serious repercussions until either a vaccine or a cure is found it is in for a profound shock. The beginnings of that shock are already being felt and they will multiply considerably when the furlough scheme ends next month. They will ramp up further when deaths from untreated non-Covid illnesses begin to increase dramatically as they surely will. I haven’t even begun to mention the fact that the most restrictive conditions on life in peacetime have been imposed by no proper Parliamentary scrutiny and have instead been imposed by ministerial edict. When compared to the fuss kicked up over Brexit last year when a similar approach was proposed it makes me chuckle. It is time for Parliament to debate this issue properly because I sincerely believe a change of approach is vital. But that may be a topic for another thread.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Travel11 mins ago
News12 mins ago
News13 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.