So basically lockdown should never of happened

[Indoctro]

Ok so this article is a little long but theirs doctor speak sense

Has our economy be destroyed and job lost for nothing and kids missed out on so much school because of some crazy mathematical modelling which was totally incorrect

Thoughts please

drmalcolmkendrick.org/author/drmalcolmkendrick/

So don't you even think some of what he is saying makes sense.? Read it again, say some of it out loud. Might help you hear the leaps in his assumptions.

He assumes, and says so, that because the CFR in the UK or France is so much lower than the WHO global stats and that they too will fall in time. He says that because of testing!!!! The more you test, the more the case fatality rate falls. Well, yes, but no... think about it. That is precisely the error one of his sources says caused the panedmic status in the first place!

Then he adds that we measure it all wrong or is it that the ultimate infection rate will be low? No wait, that should be mortality rate will be low... no, wait Ebola!!!! Or was that a bloke called Fauci?

Like many others of his ilk he has missed the first and foremost reason that everywhere locked down: inundation of emergency services, NHS etc

Yes, I know. They weren't inundated, so that was a waste of time!!!

The ONLY interesting point he makes is one that many others have been making for a while... that the WHO may have made an initial error based on faulty data. But we won't know that for a while yet! Just as we won't know what it was that highlighted this specific virus as more worthy of immediate pandemic status that had to be acted upon!

Who knows. In the aftermath of covid he may be proven right in his overall assertion, but probably not for the reasons he wrote, which is a bit hyperbolic and quite shambolic!

Tbh op I didn’t even want to open the link given it was a private individual rather than say WHO, NHS etc.

So I didn’t.

Not saying that those sources can’t be out of date, struggling with limited data, with political pressure influencing things - some or all of those. But at least they will be collating and disseminating evidence using scientific method and cautious, ethics driven methodology.

Would never

I was at school in 1968, when (according to the Daily Telegraph), 80,000 fatalities occurred in the UK due to Honk Kong Flu. I remember several people in my class being off sick at the same time, although I did not get the virus. There was no 'lockdown' at that time.
The reason for this lockdown has 'morphed', from the beginning, which was to 'flatten the spike', so the NHS could cope. Now it seems to be local lockdowns due to the number of positive tests, many of whom are asymptomatic. However, the virus has now found to be less serious for the younger generations, than previously thought.
My own view, is that the Gov had no choice but to lockdown due to the media pressure, but it should have eased after 8 weeks, and we should now be back to normal.
I say this because a countrywide shutdown of the economy is such a serious thing to do. We have never undertaken this before. I would have preferred there to have been some kind of serious study into the effects of a lockdown, before a sudden panic move, which is what it seemed to be.

Errant ‘would never’ there at the end. Not sure what else I would never do !?

No!

Did he go to the same university as Dr Dre?
This is a classic example of why checking your source is important. Anyone can have a website.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

So don't you even think some of what he is saying makes sense.? Read it again, say some of it out loud. Might help you hear the leaps in his assumptions.

He assumes, and says so, that because the CFR in the UK or France is so much lower than the WHO global stats and that they too will fall in time. He says that because of testing!!!! The more you test, the more the case fatality rate falls. Well, yes, but no... think about it. That is precisely the error one of his sources says caused the panedmic status in the first place!

Then he adds that we measure it all wrong or is it that the ultimate infection rate will be low? No wait, that should be mortality rate will be low... no, wait Ebola!!!! Or was that a bloke called Fauci?

Like many others of his ilk he has missed the first and foremost reason that everywhere locked down: inundation of emergency services, NHS etc

Yes, I know. They weren't inundated, so that was a waste of time!!!

The ONLY interesting point he makes is one that many others have been making for a while... that the WHO may have made an initial error based on faulty data. But we won't know that for a while yet! Just as we won't know what it was that highlighted this specific virus as more worthy of immediate pandemic status that had to be acted upon!

Who knows. In the aftermath of covid he may be proven right in his overall assertion, but probably not for the reasons he wrote, which is a bit hyperbolic and quite shambolic!

Hear, hear.

@Indoctro

Mrsrobertson I'm more than aware I have grammar issue as a diagnosed dyslexic I don't need some rude individual on MN to point it out

Crawl back under your stone

I hate it when people drag out the dyslexia excuse for errors which blatantly aren't dyslexic in origin. It's quite offensive to people who make genuine dyslexic mistakes.

However, the virus has now found to be less serious for the younger generations, than previously thought. And that is now being challenged... again given the difference between infection rates and mortality rates. The younger cohort are the most/growing infected at the moment... that they don't seem to be, as a cohort, affected by infection and carry on regardless, they are the most dangerous vector, at the moment!

I was listening to a woman on the radio (some youth service I think) saying we shouldn't stereotype and blame younger people and students. That was a response to the identification of the cohort of current infection rates. Somehow recognising a thing is now to blame a thing! Pshaw!

The thing is, it is not just him saying this there are numerous articles all saying the same thing. CFR was mixed up with IFR which led to an overestimate of the seriousness of covid-19 by 10x. www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/7ACD87D8FD2237285EB667BB28DCC6E9/S1935789320002980a.pdf/public_health_lessons_learned_from_biases_in_coronavirus_mortality_overestimation.pdf

@notevenat20

The moral is, not everyone with a Dr prefix is very clever :)

Or a doctor.

Remember the woman who was a nutritionist on tv - I think she had an online doctorate in something or other, but people assumed she was a medical doctor which didn’t exactly hurt her career. Although I don’t think she ever did say she was a medical doctor.

@Toontown

No. We locked down too late had we locked down early we could have relaxed earlier. Have you seen how many died despite the lock down can you imagine how bad it would have been without one.

We locked down too late to bother locking down at all

Early lockdown if you want to get on top of things. Late lockdown = what we have now. It was never brought under control in the NW at all and just starts to spread again

Mission creep from protect the nhs to the fantasy of eradication hasn't helped

Had he left it there @SarahMused, maybe even just said that clearly, without all the loud hailer stuff, I would have nodded and thought that yes, the WHO need to answer that one!

But he didn't. As I said, he may end up being right, but not for the reasons he blathers about.

curiousaboutsamphire the important part still stands. Fauci made a big error as did many others around the world causing governments to panic into harmful lockdowns instead of advising social distancing, hand washing, staying isolated when symptomatic and protecting the vulnerable, particularly in care homes. I don’t think the UK government know how to get out of this without admitting they have made a massive mistake and tanked the economy for no benefit. They are now panicking over rises in cases. Winter will be ‘interesting’ for certain.

Meh, my own country didn't go into lockdown, but still closed schools. But they are sheep, according to some people because we generally abide by rules and guidance.
If they did nothing in this country, it could have been worse.

Er did you miss the lost weeks pre lockdown when increased hygiene etc were the policy ?

Not every doctor is worth listening to. Why pick this one to believe and not the many, many others with a different opinion?

Remember the woman who was a nutritionist on tv - I think she had an online doctorate in something or other, but people assumed she was a medical doctor which didn’t exactly hurt her career. Although I don’t think she ever did say she was a medical doctor.

Ah yes and her claim to fame was putting people's pooh into a Tupperware box and showing it on the telly!

I'm glad it was pointed out upthread that grammar mistakes shouldn't be conflated with having dyslexia. I wonder if this thread is just click-bate!

Just compare the number deaths in countries that took it seriously from the start with the countries that didn't. Those are figures anyone can understand without having expertise in medical science.

@Toontown

No. We locked down too late had we locked down early we could have relaxed earlier. Have you seen how many died despite the lock down can you imagine how bad it would have been without one.

This.

I'm glad it was pointed out upthread that grammar mistakes shouldn't be conflated with having dyslexia. I wonder if this thread is just click-bate!. Yes that and the "Thoughts please" instruction made me think the same.

He cited Wikipedia, he's not a scientist if he is making claims based on a data source that can be changed by any one at any time.

@milveycrohn

I was at school in 1968, when (according to the Daily Telegraph), 80,000 fatalities occurred in the UK due to Honk Kong Flu. I remember several people in my class being off sick at the same time, although I did not get the virus. There was no 'lockdown' at that time. The reason for this lockdown has 'morphed', from the beginning, which was to 'flatten the spike', so the NHS could cope. Now it seems to be local lockdowns due to the number of positive tests, many of whom are asymptomatic. However, the virus has now found to be less serious for the younger generations, than previously thought. My own view, is that the Gov had no choice but to lockdown due to the media pressure, but it should have eased after 8 weeks, and we should now be back to normal. I say this because a countrywide shutdown of the economy is such a serious thing to do. We have never undertaken this before. I would have preferred there to have been some kind of serious study into the effects of a lockdown, before a sudden panic move, which is what it seemed to be.

Macron threatened to close the borders if we did not lockdown and we were running out of food - partly because French port workers weren’t turning up for work.

One he has sceptic in the bit about him, so you already know he’s not necessarily right

Two, he says ‘A symptomless, or even mildly symptomatic positive swab is not a case ‘ therefore the implication is it should not be stated however that person does have Covid and can pass it in,

Three, where’s the peer review on his article?

Four he is quoting two weeks from falling ill to death, it can be 28 days, that’s why the Government uses that figure

It’s rubbish. Don't forget lockdown was originally so the NHS would not become overwhelmed, something we saw in European countries, had we not lock downed , then judging by what’s happening now ( cases rising) we would have overwhelmed the NHS

We are seeing cases rise again now, yes the virus may not be so potent at the moment, possibly because SD is being followed, and it’s in younger people who may still be SD a bit, but young people can fall seriously ill with this

We also don’t know what long term damage has/will be to peoples health and no lockdown would have made it worse

As I say rubbish article from a sceptic

So Macron effectively forced Boris’s hand.