To be very concerned that Boris Johnson said this

[Worriedmum54321]

From the Guardian:
Responding to the argument that a more stringent lockdown should have been imposed sooner, he said: “Don’t forget, it’s a very very demanding thing to ask a population to do – very tough – and so I think it was completely right to make our period of lockdown coincide as far as possible with the peak of the epidemic.”

This is what Johnson said:

"And so I think it was completely right to make our period of lockdown coincide as far as we possibly could with the peak of the epidemic. That peak, as I said, just now has passed"

www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/boris-johnson-united-kingdom-coronavirus-briefing-transcript-april-30

More than total deaths we need to look at death per million, when looked at in these terms the UK's still bad but not as bad

Yes well in that case why did he (C.Whitty) go along with herd immunity?

We don't know that he did.

What he feels privately and the advice he offers the government is not necessarily the same as his personal opinion. When he stands in front of the podium at the press conference he has to follow the party line. And that will have been dictated partly by scientists but also by economists and a whole host of political concerns.

Yes well in that case why did he (C.Whitty) go along with herd immunity? flies in the face of keeping R below zero

The suppression (keeping R below 1) strategy is in fact highly risky. Based on the Imperial report, it may result in 500k deaths in Nov-Dec 2020 if the general population gets tired of social distancing measures and decides to get on with life irrespective of the potential death count.

All countries are now looking at ways to minimise the risk of the second wave by rolling out sustainable social distancing measures but we do not yet know if we manage to succeed. There are also arguments that the danger of the second wave may be overemphasised since C19 is not flu but we do not know for sure.

"Flatten the curve" (herd immunity) approach might have actually made sense based on Chinese numbers (3-4k deaths across the whole country) but once it became clear the picture in Europe (Italy) was very different, UK had to revise its strategy. We will only know in 12-18 months if it has actually worked.

More than total deaths we need to look at death per million, when looked at in these terms the UK's still bad but not as bad

Agreed with the caveat - you have to completely discount the deaths per million in tiny places like San Marino and Andorra. Their small populations make their deaths per million hugely misleading.

However, Belgium Spain and Italy currently have higher deaths per million than we do. Spain and Italy are, however, further past their peaks than us and have stricter lockdowns, so I strongly suspect we will catch up if not overtake them. Belgium - I have no idea what the fuck is going on over there.

jasjas

In the lecture he says ,if I recall, that since we have no idea if having the virus conveys immunity the herd immunity theory doesn't hold water . They don't even have a reliable test to measure antibodies to tell if someone has had the virus if they weren't tested while It was active, let alone testing for immunity. Though there is some hope that plasma therapy might be a way forward using plasma taken from confirmed patients, and presumably if that seems to be effective it might indicate that immunity post virus is a possibility.

Deaths per million is rapidly catching up Italy and will obviously overtake it.
I remember being so shocked at what was happening in Italy and here we are... we'll soon be worse.

With no land borders, it is really bad I think.

Thanks for posting that vid B1rdbra1n very involved and intresting he may not be oozeing with charisma, but he sure knows his stuff as a scientist.

Must be painfull having to talk sense and listen to BoJo in full Flo!

Oakmaiden, Belgium count suspected covid deaths as well as those that tested positive. So that might explain what’s happening there.

Tantietowie
That data is subject to all manner of distortions due to whether COVID was on the death certificate, how it is being defined in the different countries. The best way to compare like with like across countries is in terms of excess deaths over the long term norm, as per the FT analysis. That currently shows England+Wales at 52% above the norm, less bad than Italy (90%), Spain (72%), Belgium (60%) but worse than plenty of others. It's likely got as much to do with the type of lockdown (varies hugely between countries), background health of population, density of population, tendency for multi-generational living, and now possibly even ethnic mix, as the timing of the lockdown, which we know from other FT graphs varied very little across Europe.

Yes @roussette, And of course once we add in the real home numbers who knows!

Yes well in that case why did he (C.Whitty) go along with herd immunity? flies in the face of keeping R below zero

Initially they thought that the precautions they were taking - e.g. people have to stay at home if they have symptoms - would keep the R number at a manageable rate, so that most of the population would slowly catch the virus and herd immunity would be developed. This is the strategy that Sweden still seem to be following.

However, for whatever reason, it soon became apparent that the UK health system would not be able to cope.

wintertravel I think Flattening the curve was not about promoting herd immunity though, it is quite the opposite, it is about using social means of lowering the rate of 1-1 infections in order to

Support vunerable people by reducing their chance of infection

Lessen the demand so that hospitals are not overwhelmed

Allow hospitals and other institutions to build up expertise in dealing with Covid 19 patients and the specific needs that the disease brings.

Delay the impact during the last month or so of winter which is always when the greatest demand is put on hospitals.

Keeping R at 1 or preferably 0 is only possible if we maintain social distancing , some degree of lockdown and the protection of vunerable people. This is a disease for which the only effective controls we have are social controls, and that will be the situation for a long time unless effective vaccines become widely available,

you have to completely discount the deaths per million in tiny places like San Marino and Andorra

Yes - I have seen some people talk about San Marino and Andorra as being high rates per million - forgetting about the law of small numbers.

We don't know the Scientific argument because they are not telling us! and it is the Govt's argument, anyone who listens to Govt ministers questioned on the death rate hears the response you said earlier.....
Aren't you doing your own research, reading responsible press, etc.? Do you only know what Boris tells you?

Johnson is a Tory, Blair is Labour... so i would have thought the point i was making is that ANY political party in Govt should be scrutinised.
The point is you are trying to tarnish the current government with a shameful event in a previous government's history, which bears absolutely no relevance to the current situation whatsoever. Yes every government should be scrutinised. Use your ability to analyse data and assess scientific materials to support that scrutiny, rather than claiming to know only what this government tells you. As pointed out above, the data is not indicative at the moment of whether we closed down too soon, too late, too incompletely, etc.

As pointed out above, the data is not indicative at the moment of whether we closed down too soon, too late, too incompletely, etc

Even with hindsight, it seems pretty bloody obvious that it was a crap idea to allow certain big events to take place.

I take it you agree with that - and you don't need any data to support that conclusion.

Even with hindsight, it seems pretty bloody obvious that it was a crap idea to allow certain big events to take place.
It's actually unclear because we do not yet know whether deaths -over time- will be the same whenever lock down happened. Lockdown was intended to flatten the curve, which it did. It is not clear if a steeper curve now results in a lower second wave. It is also muddied by the other factors I mentioned above which we can't yet fully judge e.g. living arrangements, density of population.

Sorry reposting with top bit highlighted to avoid confusion:

Even with hindsight, it seems pretty bloody obvious that it was a crap idea to allow certain big events to take place.
It's actually unclear because we do not yet know whether deaths -over time- will be the same whenever lock down happened. Lockdown was intended to flatten the curve, which it did. It is not clear if a steeper curve now results in a lower second wave. It is also muddied by the other factors I mentioned above which we can't yet fully judge e.g. living arrangements, density of population.

I don't listen to him, he's a lying cheat by nature, a toff and a tory.
Hasn't got a clue what he's doing and is a cunt.
I don't waste my time listening to his drivel.

Belgium - I have no idea what the fuck is going on over there.

@Oakmaiden - they calculate deaths differently there - i.e. are much more transparent.

They include any "suspected" CV deaths as well as confirmed, and all non hospital deaths.

If anything they overestimate (rather than underestimate like UK...)

It's actually unclear because we do not yet know whether deaths -over time- will be the same whenever lock down happened

The aim was to reduce the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed. To control the peak.

Having a lot of people mix together in a large gathering is one hell of a way to increase the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed compared to not having such a gathering. Especially local NHS services.

The bloke can not do right for doing wrong can he? I mean had he locked down sooner everybody would be complaining about that! He has done a very good job considering this has never happened before!

Having a lot of people mix together in a large gathering is one hell of a way to increase the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed compared to not having such a gathering. Especially local NHS services.
They weren't though, were they? Not close.

You don’t need to be an expert or to debate any other facts around the pandemic to see that the PM’s statement reversed cause and effect. Therefore he is either too thick to understand simple cause and effect arguments, or he is counting on the public being too thick. Neither option is reassuring.

There are still plenty of people saying no lockdown is acceptable and it takes away their 'human rights'. Can we put them in a room with the "lockdown should have been sooner/harsher" people and let them sort it out?

Allowing those big events did seem crazy to me, but if you think about the numbers it may have made an insignificant difference. Sometimes intuition is not enough