Now they tell us, eh?

Herd immunity could have saved more lives than lockdown, study suggests
Researchers from Edinburgh University reassessed Imperial University modelling that showed half a million people would die

Listen to the scientists is all very well but which scientists?

17 thoughts on “Now they tell us, eh?”

  1. I would suspect that it makes little difference either way. Trying to contain a disease like this is like Cnut trying to hold back the tide. It will pass through the population quickly or slowly but the number of people badly affected or dead will be roughly the same.

    I read a book called Scared to Death which catalogued numerous health scares of the past. In every case the health threat was grossly exaggerated and the government response did far more damage. This pattern was repeated many times. The corona virus incident will go down as being like one more chapter in that book.

  2. The Diamond Princess early in the pandemic was the perfect experiment to demonstrate who was vulnerable due to passengers and crew all being exposed to the virus via the air conditioning and that 80% would not fall ill, and of the susceptible the vast majority even the ill elderly, would survive. There was never a basis for lockdowns. Btw why isn’t Neil Ferguson in prison?

  3. Dunno about “saving more lives”… After all, the overall number of serious cases and the % of deceased would total up to the same amount +/- a couple %

    however, we wouldn’t be in the current, quite predictable situation where Autumn and Sniffle Season has arrived while 80% or so of people have not had a chance to build up immunity against the virus over the summer by running into it and shaking it off in the most favourable season for that kind of thing, because everybody has been locked up ineffectively.

    No “herd immunity” means we’re back to zero, with a fresh batch of Vulnerables to replace the ones that succumbed in the first wave.
    We get to start all over again in the worst possible season for this, with the virus itself having gone endemic. Which means that even if a vaccine would miraculously appear now, we’re in for at least another 9 months of panic and disruption.

    All because “experts” are so arrogant they think they can “control” the global dispersion of a virus, and politicians ( on both sides!…) so arrogant that they can “control” the hosts.

    Sweden. Was. Right.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “The Government locked down the country after Imperial modelling showed that 500,000 people could die and the NHS would be overwhelmed.”

    Leaving aside the NHS being overwhelmed or not, we didn’t go as far as Ferguson demanded with the lockdown and eased it well before he said they should. On 26 April Telegraph reported:

    Lifting the coronavirus lockdown for all except the elderly would see more than than 100,000 die, the scientist behind the Government’s modelling has warned.

    And we’ve eased even more since then, and yet the death toll stands at 42.5k, less than 10% of his original modelling.

    That same modelling forecast around 85k deaths for Sweden:

    The virus was shown to be spreading far faster in Sweden, said Imperial, “not because the mortality trends are significantly different from any other country” but because “no full lockdown has been ordered so far”. Nor was a full lockdown ever ordered. So what did this imply for Sweden? Imperial didn’t translate the above graph into deaths, but when its assumptions were published others joined the dots. A Lund university academic warned that it meant 85,000 deaths for Sweden. An Uppsala team, feeding Imperial’s parameters into its own study, agreed. The modelling envisaged Sweden paying a heavy price for its rejection of lockdown, with 40,000 Covid deaths by 1 May and almost 100,000 by June.

    But they looked at the modelling and told Imperial to get stuffed, or at least Anders Tegnell did, and settled for the sort of social distancing people were doing naturally, and the death toll in Sweden is currently just under 6k, again less than 10% of the forecast, so far.

    The economic effect is well known round here so no need to go in to that.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    “All because “experts” are so arrogant they think they can “control” the global dispersion of a virus, and politicians ( on both sides!…) so arrogant that they can “control” the hosts.”

    Excellent, consider it stolen.

  6. Julia.. They can’t even factor in the difference between people dying with CoVid and those who have actually died of CoVid.

    Because Privacy, and most places don’t even make the distinction.
    A positive test is enough, even though the diseased may have been, say, 89, riddled with cancer, and suffering from pneumonia as a side effect of the Last Ditch Attempt at chemo the Family insisted on that destroyed what was left of the patients’ immune system.
    CoVid would be on the death certificate as cause…

    And of course, since it isn’t CoVid… “natural causes”, because it isn’t CoVid….

  7. Stoney, the difference with King Cnut was that he was trying to show that his ‘experts’ were wrong.
    We’ve got King C*nt Boris who has swallowed everything his ‘experts’ told him.

    LJH +100.

    The Imperial paper (16.03.20) forecast 250,000 deaths even if mitigation measures were taken.

  8. A bit of pendantry Grikath
    the overall number of serious cases and the % of deceased would total up to the same amount +/- a couple %
    Well yes, but % of what. If you mean deaths +/-% OK, it’s a small number. If you mean % of population who die it’s a very big number.

    I detect a change in the MSM. Sure, supertankers and all that, but even the Mail is carrying a. couple of articles a day against the lockdowns. And the Great Barrington Declaration (cool choice of venue) just can’t be ignored.

    However we should guard against the possibility of a vaccine screwing it up. If a rolling programme of jabs coincides with a random outbreak of above average disease (remember the leukaemia / Windscale scam) the the usual suspects (Piers Morgan, the Mial) will start a panic again and we’ll be back to square one.

  9. Two important points:

    1 – the official death counts are greatly inflated, at least in the U.S. We know that they’re counting anyone who tests positive after death (motorcycle crash, swab his nose before he goes to the morgue), as well as cases where they didn’t actually test but it looks right. And there are financial incentives to increase the number.

    2 – the lockdowns lead to increased deaths from a wide variety of sources – lack of medical treatment, suicides, drug overdoses, etc. Amazing that no one in the media seems to have any curiousity about that. And, of course, there’s all the human misery of lockdowns – people on their deathbed alone, etc.

  10. There are circa 28,000 deaths and serious injuries each year from road accidents, I don’t see calls to shut down the economy until people stop getting run over.

  11. ‘ Listen to the scientists is all very well but which scientists?’

    The ones of the last 100 years with direct experience, knowledge and understanding who helpfully wrote many books, papers, reports rather than the clowns who ignored history, wrote a sloppy computer model and are making it up as they go along to please Caesar.

    The scientists who said do not mix infectious people with non-infectious people, but that fundamental principle is ignored by today’s high priests and political non-brains.

  12. The story of Canute attempting to hold back the tide is a likely apocryphal, and doesnt even appear until a hundred years later.
    And what is this spelling Cnut? We have a perfectly good english spelling of this English king – Canute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *