It's just an overreaction.

[madcow88]

Now don't get me wrong I followed the rules to the letter and still am doing as I don't want to break the law.

However I think it's all a massive overreaction and I don't want to sit by and allow my children's generation to be destroyed.

Their education is totally fucked, they will not get to have the same social experiences as we did as young people.

Why is everyone happily sitting by and allowing our government to restrict our lives over a virus that kills 0.01% of people. Whilst 1000s of people are dying every day due to the lack of treatment and social interactions.

I really just do not feel comfortable with all the laws on our freedom being changed so dramatically over a virus if truth be told is not as deadly as they would like us to be believed.

Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for those people who lost their lives and for the people who will lose their lives in the future but no more than for the people who die of flu and other viruses each year.

@AlecTrevelyan006

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1308889807725236224.html

Reading the transcript of Whitty/Vallance lecture yesterday. I quote: “so about eight per cent, so 3 million or so people, may have been infected and have antibodies. It means that the vast majority of us are not protected in any way and are susceptible to this disease”.

Now had he said this on the floor of the House, he would have been guilty of misleading the House & made to come back, apologise profusely & set the record straight. But he wasn’t & also didn’t take any questions. I have to tell you that it’s not a matter of opinion. He’s LYING.

We know from the shape of the daily deaths vs time curve in U.K. & elsewhere that there is a force which caused the rapidly expanding pandemic in March to slow down & then to continue spreading at an ever decreasing rate, having already begun to decline before lockdown. This is crucial. As it wasn’t lockdown which terminated the rapid expansion, alternative candidates for that force, which we are certain exists by inspection of the graph, are required. There is ONLY ONE candidate for that force. It is reducing remaining population susceptibility.

As that fell continuously, R was soon below 1 & stayed like that for 16 weeks straight. That our curve is the same shape as that in multiple other countries, including Sweden, ignoring our puny efforts to influence transmission of this respiratory virus, tells us with 100% confidence that a substantial proportion of the U.K. population has already been infected & most have survived. Crucially it’s been demonstrated by at least 4 “Oxbridge quality” labs in several countries around the world, than in all cases, 20-50% of people had T-cell immune recognition of SARS-COV-2 BEFORE the new virus was even identified. Add those newly infected to those already resistant to the virus, and there is the locus of the force bearing down on transmission. There isn’t any serious doubt about it. To antibodies.

The reason I accuse Sir Patrick, in public, of LYING is that I know that he, like me, is well aware of much literature on the extent to which infected people produce antibodies. Only the most seriously ill were certain to produce antibodies at high levels which persisted for some time. But those who were infected & had a milder course of illness, not all produced antibodies & their levels fell away rather speedily.
Those who were infected yet showed few times no symptoms did not go in to produce antibodies. The reasons make sense, too. If you resisted the virus easily, you didn’t need to go through the slow & energetically expensive route of making antibodies, because you had other, perhaps so called “innate immune” mechanisms to protect you. Come along months later & test people for antibodies: of course you’ll find only those people who had a bad time of it. Most of the others didn’t need antibodies & will be negative but they have been infected. Plainly put: the % with antibodies HUGELY underestimated the proportion of the population who are resistant to infection. Don’t believe them when they scare you with their extreme predictions. It’s between implausible & impossible for a resurgence, which I term a #SecondaryRipple , to grow to any great size. It won’t rise anything like as speedily as in spring. It will soon plateau, begin to decline & that will be that.

A test: if the position was not, broadly, as I’ve painted it, you’d expect the most rapid resurgence in dense population centres, like London. That isn’t what’s happening. The reemergence is mostly limited to NW & NE, areas where probably the mixing of people was less complete before our foolish Govt put in place additional restrictions. It was this which prevented us being where Sweden now is. But if we keep our nerve & pay attention to the experienced & pragmatic Prof Carl Heneghan, this will soon be over. It’s completely ludicrous that our appear even to be contemplating more, chaotic & destructive acts. Anyone with influence on their MP, I beg of you: download this tweet string, send it to your MP & tell them I will personally explain this to them: they can decide if they’re being lied to.

They are.
Sue me.

Michael Yeadon

This☝️

[quote BlueRose18]@cornettoninja There have been countries with no lockdown with less deaths than us anyway. So no I’m not convinced. A lockdown has caused a lot more unnecessary deaths in my opinion[/quote]
Which countries are these?

(Betting on ButSweden)

@BlueRose18 - go on. Is it Sweden?

Lots of countries have had lower deaths than us and if you care to look into the reasons for that it’s fairly damning that we fucked up in March by not locking down soon enough or protecting the vulnerable (care home residents) effectively. Since the easing of lockdown with restrictions we’ve had pretty respectable numbers up to this month.

Sweden isn’t the only one I don’t know why it’s the only one people hear about but Japan was also one as well as South Korea and Nicaragua.

Aren't Sweden discussing the possibility of a lockdown? There was someone speaking yesterday about the possibility of school closures etc.

you'd expect the most rapid resurgence in dense population centres, like London
In March, people kept on insisting that London wasn't being as badly hit, blah, blah, blah. When it was too obvious to continue denial, the previous dismissals were completely ignored. No, sorry we were wrong. Instead, Government and media reported on London's massive death count as 'of course it will be worse hit, we always knew that'...!

The same will happen again. People can't get tested (so no official case increase) and figures look deceptively low because of the strange policy of reporting an interlinked city as cases from individual boroughs... but London's hospitals are already seeing an increase in admissions. It's happening.

@Ballany

Aren't Sweden discussing the possibility of a lockdown? There was someone speaking yesterday about the possibility of school closures etc.

Yes. They're particularly concerned about Stockholm, which is seeing a worrying increase in cases.

I'm also still waiting for our major housing, demographical, and geographical change. And overnight excellent well-funded healthcare system. So that we can 'be like Sweden'. More realistic that we be like fellow islands Australia and New Zealand. Easier, quicker, and cheaper to do short-term proper lockdown then ease out but WITH closed borders (proper quarantine for essential travel like freight).

@madcow88
@AlecTrevelyan006

The letter makes a fair point that antibody levels understate the level of infection, but the extent to which this is the case is very uncertain, and for the author’s claims that Sir Patrick is “lying”, he’s not exactly being balanced in his arguments. We know from various studies that asymptotic individuals do produce antibodies widely - take Mumbai slums where levels were at 58%, way about the 8% here. His beef with Sir Patrick’s presentation of the figures has some merit, but the conclusions drawn go far further than the current evidence permits.

The main problem is that these posts, and those that re-tweet them, tend to have a libertarian agenda that blinds them to the flaws in the arguments. It’s a case of:

“Great! This seems a plausible and well written argument, and it’s in tune with my philosophy, so I’m going to use it to promote my “cause”. I won’t consider whether the argument may have flaws, as I’m more interested in promoting my cause than the actual veracity of the claims made.”

@ballany Not sure why Sweden would be discussing a lockdown they haven’t had new cases for 2 days and within that time only 5 deaths

[quote BlueRose18]@ballany Not sure why Sweden would be discussing a lockdown they haven’t had new cases for 2 days and within that time only 5 deaths[/quote]
When 50% of the population live alone, it's easier to socially distance. Add in a very good healthcare system and you have a nation with good overall health (including less instances of undiagnosed conditions) and better chance of early treatment for Covid.

So nothing like us and therefore impossible for us to emulate in our handling of Covid.

Yet still they're worried.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/22/stockholm-mulls-local-restrictions-worrying-infection-signs/amp/

@BlueRose18

Sweden isn’t the only one I don’t know why it’s the only one people hear about but Japan was also one as well as South Korea and Nicaragua.

If you don’t like the restrictions on our freedoms now you really wouldn’t like the restrictions utilised in Asia.

South Korea, for example, have had a fabulous response to corona, largely due to their experience with SARS. The first whiff of corona and the public were voluntarily wearing masks. Their track and trace is very effective but very intrusive to the point it’s created problems where affairs have been uncovered! Can’t see that getting much traction here.

Japan have also got the experience with SARS and civic minded population along with an experienced track and trace system already in place due to dealing with TB for a long time.

Taiwan heard China had an issue and went into full defensive mode because they understandably knew full well that china’s reaction spelt trouble no matter how they tried to downplay it.

All three have had at least local lockdowns/quarantined areas at various points.

I don’t think you can post of your concerns about our freedoms and rights and then use very authoritarian countries as examples you find more palatable.

I am 110% with you OP.

I think it's madness and it should now be left up to individuals to take responsibility. Some people say "but that affects others", well no, it doesn't. I have chosen not to return to the gym as I think that's a risky environment. I chose not to go to a non-close friend/acquaintance's milestone birthday party because I knew there wouldn't be much social distancing. I avoid risks like this because I don't want to catch COVID nor give it to the few people I do see, close family and close friends. Of those people I only see my parents and very occasionally sibling and partner indoors at all.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? IMO there shouldn't be any restrictions, it doesn't mean everyone has to go to massive house parties, pubs etc! Those who want to, can. If they catch COVID, then shame for them.

If they catch COVID, then shame for them
Even bigger shame for the doctors and nurses and other hospital staff having to treat them (risking their own lives and long-term health). Shame too for our tax revenue when large amounts will be required to pay sickness benefits and long-term NHS care for Long Covid sufferers.
Also big giant shame for the next patients who can't get a bed because it's already taken.

@tempnamechange98765

I am 110% with you OP.

I think it's madness and it should now be left up to individuals to take responsibility. Some people say "but that affects others", well no, it doesn't. I have chosen not to return to the gym as I think that's a risky environment. I chose not to go to a non-close friend/acquaintance's milestone birthday party because I knew there wouldn't be much social distancing. I avoid risks like this because I don't want to catch COVID nor give it to the few people I do see, close family and close friends. Of those people I only see my parents and very occasionally sibling and partner indoors at all.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? IMO there shouldn't be any restrictions, it doesn't mean everyone has to go to massive house parties, pubs etc! Those who want to, can. If they catch COVID, then shame for them.

I agree with all of that. I’ve done what I can out of respect for other people and understanding their fears. Plus I don’t like crowded places anyway lol

The vast majority of non vulnerable people catching COVID are not hospitalised at all. Your post assumes everyone is hospitalised - look at today's published hospital admissions versus number of cases. It's stark.

@tempnamechange98765

The vast majority of non vulnerable people catching COVID are not hospitalised at all. Your post assumes everyone is hospitalised - look at today's published hospital admissions versus number of cases. It's stark.

Many Long Covid sufferers weren't hospitalised.

I also don’t understand for something with such a low death rate they’ve postponed cancer treatments and other important health issues. Causing unnecessary deaths.

I may be wrong but wouldn't they suspend cancer treatments as the treatments (in the main) trash the immune system and therefore make the person more susceptible to Covid, and far more likely to die.

@tempnamechange98765

The vast majority of non vulnerable people catching COVID are not hospitalised at all. Your post assumes everyone is hospitalised - look at today's published hospital admissions versus number of cases. It's stark.

Yes agree it's stark...the similarity to March. Cases increasing, hospital admissions starting to rise.... Then we got to the situation in April. Cases don't just stop increasing without action taken to halt and then contain the spread.

@Cornettoninja Thanks for the info about South Korea. I actually hadn’t heard of that and you’re right I certainly wouldn’t have appreciated that!

I spent some time in Japan when I was early/mid 20’s and still have contact with my old host family and some friends over there. They’re all pretty respectful of one another and tend to keep themselves to themselves when it comes to strangers anyway so I’m not surprised social distancing worked in their case. It’s always been a bit like that in their society.
I feel it’s changing with the younger Gen though. All stay at home rules and non essential business closures were voluntary over there

So what is your point sorry? If they weren't hospitalised then long Covid or not, they weren't putting a strain on hospitals.

[quote BlueRose18]@ballany Not sure why Sweden would be discussing a lockdown they haven’t had new cases for 2 days and within that time only 5 deaths[/quote]
Not sure where you're getting your figures from, they are averaging 300 new cases per day. They were averaging 200 per day, and the sharp increase has had them considering restrictions. Deaths tend to follow on several weeks later from spikes.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? IMO there shouldn't be any restrictions, it doesn't mean everyone has to go to massive house parties, pubs etc! Those who want to, can. If they catch COVID, then shame for them

Because there are too many people who think they have no responsibility to others and there are a sizeable portion of the population who need protection from them. People who attend a house party aren’t going to consider that they come into contact with people who have no choice that they are now exposed to someone who has purposefully put themselves in a crowd of people for a length of time.

Frankly I’d be happy to corner off a section of the country for those who really don’t care to fuck off to and get on with it but contagious viruses don’t work like that. You make the best decisions for you but if you fail to consider the risk that puts people you don’t even know at then we need proper legislation to enforce that.

Have you ever come across the quote relating to sexual health that states if you have sex with someone you are having sex with everyone they have ever had sex with? It’s about exposure and odds.

All stay at home rules and non essential business closures were voluntary over there

Exactly and they’ve benefited from it greatly. The UK was never going to do that voluntarily so it was necessary to enforce it.

cornettoninja I like that comparison, the sexual health one.

But if you knew someone was promiscuous, you'd take precautions right. In COVID talk, precautions could be anything from maintaining a strict 2m minimum distance outdoors only, or just not seeing that person at all. I understand that the person might work in a supermarket so comes into contacts with a lot of customers, but again as a customer who is keen to be cautious, you wear a mask, don't come too close, wash hands thoroughly.