Damned fool idiot

There is in Sumption’s claim, the essence of the Great Barrington Declaration. It too assumed that lives could be divided between those worth saving or not. Those not worth saving were to be removed from Covid infected society, to be locked away from view for the duration of the pandemic, so that those of pure form might continue life unhindered by those of lesser worth, even if they happened to be their parents, siblings or even offspring. The assumption was that the ‘pure’ would be happy with this, and would indifferently wait to see who if the impure might make it through to the end when the goal of herd immunity had been achieved, when the survivors amongst the impure might be welcomed back, like the survivors of The Hunger Games.

If lives aren’t to be assigned different values then why do we have a £30k a year per Qualy limit on NHS treatments?

66 thoughts on “Damned fool idiot”

  1. Another example of Ritchie making a tit of himself by only reading secondary sources. If he had gone back to the original source, he would see that Sumption’s claim that the woman’s life was of less value was not because she had cancer but because she was older.

    However, credit where it’s due for Ritchie working in the phrase “the assumption” in an article about Sumption 🙂

  2. He really is a cunt. This is neither what Sumption said or what was said in the Gt Barrington Declaration. ‘Those not worth saving’ is an outright lie. The whole point of GBD was that the most vulnerable should be isolating to keep them safe.
    He can’t possibly believe what he writes. I won’t sully myself by looking at the comments in his site, but I can imagine his sycophants lapping this shit up.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Inte4restingly the American CDC openly said that it was necessary to let older people die because they were more likely to be White and more Whites had to die to balance the racial disparity.

    I am willing to bet that Ritchie does not object to that and that the NHS is doing the same.

    The future of Britain is a brown hand pulling the plug on a life support machine keeping a White person alive.

  4. Don’t these idiots understand what triage is? We have always made value judgements when deciding who to save. We have entered an age of hysterical infantalism.

  5. Bloke in China (Germany province)

    The QALY-price concept really relates well to individual new cancer drugs that can command astronomical prices for minimal survival benefits. That is what is was introduced for, not as some kind of actuarial general healthcare cost-benefit evaluation. There are plenty of quite normal conditions for which your overall healthcare costs can exceed £30,000 a year. Dialysis will get you close to that, being in a care home (palliative, end-stage dementia ~=0 quality of life but we still pay) well over it. And exceptions are made for super-expensive products for super-rare conditions.

    I’ve got some more thoughts on this but they aren’t mature or organised (stop giggling). Essentially, Sumption is wrong on this but it’s irrelevant because the vaccine, which is being rolled out at admirable speed in the UK, should very quickly kibosh any argument about ongoing lockdowns. We just don’t need them any more, whatever your view on their efficacy.

    It’s sad, but not unexpected, that Sumption isn’t going to win this with an academic argument about fundamental rights, freedoms, limits of government power etc. It should be now blatantly clear that people menaced with what they believe to be an existential threat are happy to hand all of those noble thoughts over in return for the faux safety of lockdowns and masks. Courage is nowhere to be found. We will hand over our democracy rather than take even a 0.1% risk of dying to defend it.

    Talking about anyone’s life being less valuable than anyone else’s is always going to hit the wrong emotional note, and that is where arguments are won, not with numbers and logic and constitutional assumptions. It’s also wrong. The QALY concept works explicitly on the basis that all life is of equal value by seeking to direct scarce, existing, resources at where they can be most effectively applied. Corona, and the reactions to it, are not simply money spent out of a health insurance fund, it’s far too complicated to reduce to a single trade-off.

  6. The key question now is: how do we deal with future respiratory virus pandemics?

    My answer would be selective shielding of the most vulnerable groups (with state subsidy for low-vulnerables living with high-vulnerables), banning of super-spreader events plus whatver other non-pharmaceutical interventions are proven to work.

  7. “What a complete and utter lying cunt”

    Jimmers beat me to it.

    “…fundamental rights, freedoms, limits of government power etc. It should be now blatantly clear that people menaced with what they believe to be an existential threat are happy to hand all of those noble thoughts over in return for the faux safety of lockdowns and masks. Courage is nowhere to be found. We will hand over our democracy rather than take even a 0.1% risk of dying to defend it.”

    BiG +1

  8. You mean flu outbreaks Theo. For–shorn of all the fucking lies that is what C19 is.

    Start with a real test that works to say who has what and doesn’t allow cunts to engage in mass exaggeration/deceit.

    And the mass ownership of firearms UK wide would help a lot to put the states thugs in their place.

  9. FWIW there are no shortage of the Wise & Wonderful in the U.S. who have argued for rationing care and that age should be a factor, including Ezekiel Emmanuel, an advisor to Biden. The Left is far more amenable to this idea than the Right in the U.S., at least in part because their desire for the Curajus State to run everything leads them to a mindset that we exist to serve the State.

  10. The whole point of GBD was that the most vulnerable should be isolating to keep them safe.

    The GBD states:

    People who are more at risk may participate if they wish

    Everyone should be free to decide for themselves what level of risk is acceptable and live their lives accordingly. My 90 year old mum would be seeing far more of her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren if it was up to her. She is officially in a bubble with one of my brothers who is single, but my other brother also visits less officially. Thankfully, her neighbours are decent people who are concerned about her well-being and don’t feel the need to ring the filth.

  11. C19 is not a flu Ecks. Flu is caused by influenza viruses A, B, C, or D; C19 is caused by a coronavirus.

    It’s one of the few fucking facts known about this disease: you might as well get it right.

  12. Isolate the vulnerable; lockdown the robust
    OR
    Isolate the vulnerable; ler the robust carry on.

    What is the difference to the vulnerable?
    There can be no medical justification for spoiling the lives of young healthy people. It makes the old look spiteful.

  13. Slightly OT but Paul Staines would be well advised to flog the Guido Fawkes site while it still has value. On covid it’s almost as on-message as the beeb and today’s Sumption cartoon is just the latest idiocy. Other than that, it’s becoming boringly partisan and is littered with grammatical and spelling mistakes.

  14. It makes the old look spiteful.

    The old have not asked that everyone be locked down for their benefit, it is the government and its health advisors that have decided upon this course of action without wider consultation.

  15. Friends of friends in Florida (where gov’t restrictions are pretty light) in their 90s with co-morbidities started out being extremely reclusive out of fear. Eventually they decided that they’d rather take some risk than spend their last few years holed up – you know, we probably only have 2-3 good years left, do we want to spend half of that locked up?
    Hmmm, let people make their own value judgments about their own lives? Sounds kinda risky.

  16. DocBud – somewhat true about old people not being asked directly, but I’ve seen plenty of online debate where people – old, immune compromised or just scared – are absolutely unashamed to sacrifice other people’s freedom to make them feel a little safer.

  17. bloke in china (spain province)

    @Bloke in China (Germany province)
    It should be now blatantly clear that people menaced with what they believe to be an existential threat are happy to hand all of those noble thoughts over in return for the faux safety of lockdowns and masks. Courage is nowhere to be found. We will hand over our democracy rather than take even a 0.1% risk of dying to defend it.

    Really? The revealed preferences of the people I either meet of correspond with don’t seem to reflect this. At least they’re doing their best to get around what restrictions they’re under or moaning bitterly. OK, we all live in our own opinion bubbles but mine seems to be pretty extensive bubble. Comments on here are majority the same direction. Trouble is, there seems to be no debate between the two sides of the argument. The Coronapanic side’s position is we give up our freedoms & bankrupt ourselves. to keep them safe, no objections permitted. “You don’t value my life!” (Truth of course being I don’t. WTF should I?)

  18. Dearime–kills at the same rate as a bad flu–thousands of old –maybe– as PCR test cant tell them apart. And a few hundred young. And the medicals seem very certain of a virus whose structure they cant yet agree on or describe.

  19. ” the vaccine, which is being rolled out at admirable speed in the UK, should very quickly kibosh any argument about ongoing lockdowns.”

    I’ll guarantee you that there will at the very least be calls for lockdowns next winter regardless of how many people have been vaccinated and what the numbers for covid cases are looking like. Indeed if they continue to use the PCR test in the manner they are now the number of cases will reach high peaks every winter from now on, as covid will be endemic within the population and will return each winter, just like the flu. It would take a government with a bit of backbone to face down these calls and we all know Boris’s backbone has gone AWOL……

  20. “There’s no avoiding that our romantic opportunities have dwindled as the pool of age-appropriate men has emptied. Annually, we manage a small smattering of dates between us. Most of us have grown weary of online dating, which requires you to treat it as an all-consuming hobby or part-time job. We’re tired of Tinder, bored of Bumble – I’ve even been ejected by eHarmony, which, last time I logged on, told me it couldn’t find me a single match.”

    I find this a little sad. Unlike most of the awful women at the Guardian, this one actually seems quite pleasant. But she isn’t a looker. And those sites are all about looks. People trying to find hotties rather than someone as farty as them.

    If you’re not a hottie, exploit your interests. She’s a cricket fan, and I’m damn sure there’s a load of farty blokes who watch cricket. Men who spend 5 days watching cricket don’t have wives and children to drive around. Join a club, go to the socials, I’m sure you’ll find someone.

  21. BoM4,

    I watch all five days of a test match, and I have a wife, son and daughter who do the same. Our other two, one son, one daughter, show an interest in tests, but prefer the shorter versions of the game.

  22. “oops wrong thread…”

    And all the more invigorating for it.

    Maybe we should all scatter our comments haphazardly about the day’s threads. Except Ecks of course.

  23. @The Meissen Bison- yep, in particular, Guido’s attacks on James Dellingpole have been rather distasteful. My guess is like many other ‘mainstream’ conservatives *cough*Matthew Parris* he’s desperate to distinguish himself from those dreadful oikish populists and maintain his invite to polite society.

    @Philip- correct, the rate of death in the young is so small (0.05% of all deaths in England were under 19) that isolating the vulnerable would make much more sense.

  24. Heartening to see that age is mellowing the irascible old P³ who deals sympathetically with a commenter who appears to be a doctor.

    “If you have demonstrated your decision-making abilities with that question and you really are a doctor, heaven help your patients because you are really very, very bad at it.

    I suggest you start to think”

  25. My answer would be selective shielding of the most vulnerable groups (with state subsidy for low-vulnerables living with high-vulnerables), banning of super-spreader events plus whatver other non-pharmaceutical interventions are proven to work.

    There’s no point in shielding the vulnerable in combination with slowing the spread amongst the rest, it just unnecessarily extends the shielding period. Shielding and maximising mixing is what will hasten return to normality for all.

    .

    In the case of Covid-19, once the prime vulnerable (over 55?) are vaccinated (voluntarily) then we should fully open up the country instantly. There’s no point at all in vaccinating the non-vulnerable; let them party.

  26. Isolate the vulnerable; lockdown the robust
    OR
    Isolate the vulnerable; ler the robust carry on.

    What is the difference to the vulnerable?

    In the latter scenario, the vulnerable can come out of isolation sooner.

  27. I like the idea that anyone opposed to a policy of ‘De Facto House Arrest’ has a ‘fascist’ mindset. This from a man who wants the state to take over all aspects of the economy and who supported the mot viciously anti-semitic party seen in a UK election in more than 7 decades…..

  28. “There’s no point in shielding the vulnerable in combination with slowing the spread amongst the rest, it just unnecessarily extends the shielding period.”

    I used to think that. Until the level of herd immunity I was expecting didn’t appear….And not encouraging the spread among the non-vulnerable provides additional protection for the vulnerable, given that the vulnerable can’t be completely isolated from non-vulnerable.

    Andy xT:
    “the rate of death in the young is so small (0.05% of all deaths in England were under 19)”. Actually, the figure for 0-19 is even smaller: 0.003%. And for the 20-49 age group, it’s only 0.02%.

  29. How would you go about valuing the life of a Murphy? – discuss.

    would work quite well on an economics paper!

  30. What must be remembered in all this is that ‘the lockdown’ that we have been and are experiencing is not really a lockdown at all. Vast numbers of people are working as normal (not from home) because they have to in order for society to continue to function. Food, energy, transport, logistics, healthcare, social care, communications, etc etc all have to continue regardless of whether the local council Diversity Officers are ‘working from home’ or not. And apart from the first lockdown, when lots of people who technically didn’t need to closed their businesses, since then its business as usual really. Construction, factories, warehouses, basically everyone other than the retail, hospitality and air travel trades are working as normal. And as such all those people are interacting with other people every day, and undoubtedly spreading covid as they do. And as the people newly infected are then shut up in their homes with their families for the rest of the week, everyone in the household gets it. And they pass it on at work themselves.

    All lockdowns are doing is protecting middle class office types who can isolate and work from home. While all the grafters who they rely on to maintain their comfortable lifestyle have to take their chances with the virus.

  31. I used to think that. Until the level of herd immunity I was expecting didn’t appear…

    Why would you expect it to appear when we have been minimising mixing? And if it doesn’t appear when we do mix then it means the disease is less infectious and the vulnerable are safer.

    And not encouraging the spread among the non-vulnerable provides additional protection for the vulnerable, given that the vulnerable can’t be completely isolated from non-vulnerable.

    It also ruins the country.

    Flatten-the-curve evolved into save-every-soul so fast we hardly noticed.

  32. @ Sam

    Seconded. His wailings that he is a real Professor are just spectacular. What kind of insecurity does it take to list out academic achievements and positions and then claim they are full Professorships?

  33. Sam Jones/Tyler

    Thanks for that – have got some screen grabs so even if he deletes it it’s preserved for posterity! What a pathetic individual he is!

  34. PJF

    “Why would you expect it to appear when we have been minimising mixing?”

    Because the infection levels have been high. And we haven’t minimised mixing, though we have reduced it. Which is why Toby Young et al thought there wouldn’t be a second wave…

  35. Bloke in North Dorset

    Blimey, I rarely go to Spud’s place but that was amazing and worth the effort.

    His final response deserves the Blog equivalent of an Oscar for arrogance and pomposity.

  36. Can a “Visiting” (just popping next door to the neighbour’s for a couple of kidneys)Professorship in moral philosophy be more than a few days off?

  37. Dear Mr Jones January 18, 2021 at 6:37 pm

    “Well done to ‘Rajeev’ for his comments – Ritchie’s reactions are hysterical.”

    Rajieve – “… the basic fact that older people are likely to die sooner and more often than younger people.”

    Slightly wrong there, older people do not die more often than young people: they, like all people, only die once*.

    Hope this helps.

    DP

    * However, some claim you only live twice.

  38. Holy Mierda

    I have – who knows how? – avoided reading the loathsome Murphy for quite a while. But was triggered to do so with the link above

    My o my.

    What a remarkably unpleasant, shallow, incompetent and self-delusional fellow he is.

    And that’s based on just the conversation with ‘Rajiev’. I assume his competence in anything to do with economics and reality is similarly flawed.

    Gack.

  39. It’s amazing how he even manages to screw up the I was married to a doctor for 20 years card, though anyone who had bothered even half listening to a partner in the medical profession isn’t in the slightest surprised by current NHS incompetence or that they have been doing this every winter since there was an NHS.
    Winter surge and ICU deciding who gets admitted is normal life it’s just the media has never been that interested before.
    Seem to recall one Italian doctor I. The first wave saying they were swamped every year it’s just no one sent a camera crew before

  40. Because the infection levels have been high.

    If they’d been high we would be close to herd immunity. They obviously haven’t been high. Perhaps they’ve been reported as being high?

    And we haven’t minimised mixing, though we have reduced it.

    Pendantry. We’ve done our best to avoid herd immunity after the notion was abandoned by govt.

    Which is why Toby Young et al thought there wouldn’t be a second wave…

    They’re idiots. From the very beginning the lockdown sceptics have been warning that preventing the spread will delay herd immunity and we’d have to keep repeating the lockdowns – exactly what’s happened. I said on these very pages during the early summer that we should open society (apart from the vulnerable) and mix as much as possible while the weather was good.

    And now we have to be fucked about until they vaccinate everyone, which is so unbelievably fucking pointless it’s enough to persuade a reasonable man that there really is a vaccine conspiracy.

  41. Bloke in China (Germany province)

    If Lockdown achieves anything then it was murderous idiocy to impose it, at all, over the summer for a seasonal virus. I don’t know what it was like in China (Britain Province) but there was at least distancing and facial dress codes in China (Germany Province).

    That’s what happens when government is advised on infectious diseases by a theoretical physicist without even a GCSE in biology brandishing a theoretical model that has spectacularly lost every time it has been tested against reality.

  42. “If they’d been high we would be close to herd immunity”

    Non sequitur. We don’t know (beyond reasonable doubt) how many infections there have been or how many asymptomatic cases there have been or how long immunity lasts or whether asymptomatic infections grant as much immunity as symptomatic…etc.

    “We’ve done our best to avoid herd immunity after the notion was abandoned by govt.”

    No, we haven’t. The aim is not to avoid herd immunity but to prevent health services being overwhelmed. Meanwhile, there is still a huge amount of interpersonal interaction in society, even though hospitality, retail, education, socialising etc have been curtailed.

    No lockdown would have been catastrophic. The lockdowns we’ve had have been very damaging. The issue then is what sort of measures would have been most or more appropriate – ie what works to prevent health services being overwhelmed while encouraging a degree of herd immunity? Did we need to close schools and universities? Did we need to lockdown over the summer? How effectively could we shield the most vulnerable? And so on.

    “…it’s enough to persuade a reasonable man that there really is a vaccine conspiracy.”

    Anyone who believes in a “vaccine conspiracy” is ipso facto not reasonable.

  43. My feeling is that the reason the government went for the sledgehammer of lockdowns rather than the rapier of differential restrictions based on age (ie some version of the GBD) is that they had the legal power (allegedly, the courts have conveniently refused to consider the point) to lock everyone down on the grounds of public health via the Public Health Act of 1984, but not based on age as that would contradict the Equality Act. My guess is that were they to introduce some age based discriminatory regime it would have had to be introduced either under entirely new legislation, and/or the Equality Act would have to have been suspended, and/or they would have had to use the Civil Contingencies Act. The latter being not so much a sledgehammer than a tactical nuclear weapon. And which would have been subject to considerable Parliamentary oversight, and would also (being never used before) generate considerable number of legal challenges that the courts might have considered should be looked at, given this was its first outing.

    So my feeling is they chose the Public Health Act because it gave them the easiest ride and least Parliamentary oversight. The fact it wasn’t in the public’s interest, in that the most vulnerable were not protected, and the non-vulnerable were subject to unjustified lockdowns and economic damage, is of no great concern to the State.

  44. BiC(GP): …a theoretical physicist without even a GCSE in biology brandishing a theoretical model that has spectacularly lost every time it has been tested against reality.

    Yes, this is fascinating. Has there ever been any evaluation of why all his models have produced hopelessly exaggerated forecasts? Has he ever admitted that his FMD model was hopeless and that he has corrected it for future use? Or has he just persevered in the hope that one day reality would catch up with his predictions?

    For my part I became a Covid atheist and an NHS apostate early on, on the basis of (i) Prof Fergusson’s numbers and (ii) the number of older and frailer folk on the Diamond Princess who declined to die despite the lab-rat conditions of their confinement.

  45. . . . to prevent health services being overwhelmed.

    FFS, it’s floundering back round to “flatten the curve”.

    Stay Home : Protect the NHS : Save Lives : Fuck Off

  46. Let the virus rip…and 20m cases within weeks is not improbable. Assume a hospitalization rate of 1%, so 200,000 admissions in a matter of weeks…and the health service collapses.

    Yes, “protect the NHS” is tiresome; but the alternative would be serious.

    Lockdown sceptics (of which I was one) made various predictions back in March – including that natural immunity is widespread, infections would peak in around June and there would be no second wave. All proved false. And when the facts change, I change my mind.

  47. “No lockdown would have been catastrophic.”

    What SMFS said. Have you any evidence for that? Not Boris or others lying as usual but actual evidence?

    That fact checker thing you linked the other day was flawed as I pointed out (those fact checkers almost always are). The NHS data being a far better proxy (ie community infection > hospital death) pointed clearly towards peak infection mostly (geographically) taking place before lockdown. That’s backed up by the NHS pathways 111 data that showed peak calls (for the country overall) into the NHS taking place on 23rd March. (There is a time lag from initial infection to symptoms (average 5 days), and then from there on to the average 111 call.)

    Both of those cross-confirm average peak infection taking place well before the 23rd enforced lockdown. So what evidence is there to the contrary? What evidence is there that it was specifically the 23rd March lockdown which caused R to ease back, infections then subsequently peak, and R fall back below 1?

    “to prevent health services being overwhelmed.”

    It was clear that, by April / May, that particular objective had been quietly abandoned and had morphed into “suppress the virus” – or “save Boris’s fat backside and screw the economy”.

    “Anyone who believes in a “vaccine conspiracy” is ipso facto not reasonable.”

    Back at the start, conspiracy theorists were forecasting all sorts of lunacy, including predicting that people would start calling for vaccine passports! Utter bollocks we all said. And yet, today, even the Times is talking about it. Personally, I’m going to hold off and watch for a while, before concluding whether reasonable or not.

    Jim +1

  48. “And when the facts change, I change my mind.”

    Indeed.

    “Lockdown sceptics (of which I was one) made various predictions back in March – including that natural immunity is widespread, infections would peak in around June and there would be no second wave.”

    People like Ivor Cummings did predict a perfectly normal autumn up-tick, despite R falling back below 1 in the spring (ie, Corona viruses are seasonal?). Even with a degree of spread / immunity in place, a subsequent more infectious strain might well now push R0 higher, which might then easily lead to a bigger autumnal up-tick (although we still don’t know the numbers yet). And without negating what was said earlier.

    And did people really predict that infections would peak in June? I’m not sure that ever had any credibility at all?

  49. “Let the virus rip…and 20m cases within weeks is not improbable.”

    Really..?! is there any genuine data for that?

  50. “Really..?! is there any genuine data for that?”

    There doesn’t need to be. It’s a possible, even probable, high impact event that has to be allowed for. So on what grounds would we rule it out? There was zero natural immunity until recently, and what natural immunity there is may last only 4-6 months.

    Even 0.5% of 10m infections would be serious.

    “And did people really predict that infections would peak in June?”

    Yes. Prof Michael Levitt FRS.

    I am sceptical about the sort of lockdown introduced. However, I do think some NPIs are justified – the question is which ones?

  51. “Possible” – yes, sure, no problem.“Probable” – that’s different, a firmer judgement; if that was me, I’d want to be able to substantiate it in some way.

    “There was zero natural immunity until recently, and what natural immunity there is may last only 4-6 months.”

    I’m not at all convinced that all the evidence / research etc on T-cell immunity and memory T-cells substantiates that at all, but I think others on here are far better qualified than I am to elaborate on that.

    “However, I do think some NPIs are justified – the question is which ones?”

    I completely agree. Mine would essentially always start from being completely voluntary (for something with such a low IFR), and helping people to make informed decisions; and elsewhere practically helping those that might be disadvantaged (helping the vulnerable to protect themselves).

    “Prof Michael Levitt FRS.”

    Interesting. Again, others far better qualified, but maybe surprised that he would predict that infections (not subsequent deaths) for a (seasonal) CV would peak as late as June?

  52. @ Jim
    Well said! Ignore the hysterical commentatots, some of whom sound as bad as the Grauniad.
    We do not know what the effect of the alternative would have been *but* the death rate in Sweden is more than ten times the rate in Norway. How many people think that a 1 million increase in the death rate is tolerable? As a statistician I might argue that the cost of the lockdowns in non-covid deaths, malnutrition, domestic abuse, inferior living conditions etc etc is greater at some valuation of human life, but most people would just ignore me if I tried – and my personal view is that I should rather suffer my share of lockdown costs (significantly more than 1 part in 60 million ‘cos it’s only us with savings who will have to pay it) than watch others die.

  53. “We do not know what the effect of the alternative would have been *but* the death rate in Sweden is more than ten times the rate in Norway. How many people think that a 1 million increase in the death rate is tolerable?”

    John, I’m probably completely misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that it’s imaginable that 1 million potentially could have died in the UK if we hadn’t locked down (alternative)?

    btw, my data for spring peak infection occurring before enforced lockdown on 23rd March is here:

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

    I wanted the best proxy for “community infection > hospital death”. Ie strip care homes out, there is an obvious greater time lag from say community infection (which is what lockdowns are trying to prevent) to a subsequent care home death.

    At the time I looked into this (late spring) 23 days (5 days for infection to symptoms and 18 days for symptoms to death) was a typical average that was widely reported / used in this context.

    Hence, one can lag back the regional analysis, smooth and graph it for ease, and for London especially, it’s all pretty obvious. The north west was the only area where I could see that lockdown may clearly have suppressed (?), and it was the north that had the biggest uptick in November (before this mutant strain with its higher R0).

    If one does some similar stuff on trusts, you can see some more variant peaking going on that clearly has nothing to do with lockdowns.

    Can I back this up / cross check it at all? Well, there is some separate data on here (on 111 calls).

    https://digital.nhs.uk/dashboards/nhs-pathways

    Given there must be a lag – from infection, first off through symptoms, then from symptoms to someone feeling crap enough that a call to 111 is warranted, this also supports that the spring peak occurred before enforced lockdown. There is a lot of data in there, including regional, that one can down load (csv) if interested?

  54. @Van_Patten

    Great call on the screengrabs… it seems that the fat cowardly fuck has deleted the entire Rajeev thread.

  55. “Lockdown sceptics (of which I was one) made various predictions back in March – including that natural immunity is widespread, infections would peak in around June and there would be no second wave. All proved false. ”

    There is no second wave. Deaths are completely within the parameters of recent years for the time of year. Deaths are the only statistic that the State can’t fudge – people are either dead or not. If your definition of a pandemic is when the death rate is perfectly normal then you need your head examining.

    What we have at the moment is the usual failures of the sainted NHS to provide any sort of decent level of healthcare under anything other than perfect conditions. It has these problems every year, and worse if there’s a bad flu season.

  56. Jim

    Purely wrt current total deaths:

    The ONS total mortality data might be up slightly compared to normal, it’s really difficult to tell at the moment simply because registered deaths always does a large yo-yo around Xmas/1st week of New Year. By next Tuesday, it should all be getting clearer.

    And if total deaths are currently pointing up to some extent, removing the yo-yo, and happy for others to correct me on this, that might appear to be entirely consistent what is taking place.

    1) For the initial strains: An earlier burn through to end of Nov / early Dec; ie the novel spring surge, followed by a far lesser autumnal up-tick as others predicted for a different seasonal effect. And then:

    2) Followed by the revised impact of this later strain: If this strain is genuinely more infectious, then from Theoretical HIT=1-1/R0, one might expect a (genuine) temporary fresh increase in deaths from the increase in HIT, purely as a result of this new strain? (Practical HIT less than theoretical HIT; for variation (super spreaders etc), existing T-cell immunity, etc?)

    Hence, if this new strain is real, the burn through / immunity notion should NOT be negated by (real) extra deaths now as that more infectious strain temporarily surges through?

    And, as per Tim Spector’s data, peak infection (which takes place at least 5 days before Tim’s peak for symptoms), for all the noise, clearly happened prior to Boris’s January lockdown (it’s becoming a theme).

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/your-contribution

  57. “Weekly deaths are way above the five year average. Covid positive tests peaked in early January.”

    Forget covid tests, its garbage data.

    The big question is ‘Is the death rate in excess of any of the death rates for this time of year in any of the last 10 (at minimum) years?’ If it isn’t then we don’t have a pandemic. You can’t compare a single year against the average, you have to compare it against the worst case in the past X years. If its worse than that, then you may have something significant. If we are being expected to accept unprecedented controls over our liberties and unprecedented voluntary destruction of our national wealth, there needs to be an unprecedented medical crisis to justify it. Not something that has happened at least once in the last 10 years and probably multiple times in the last 30 years.

  58. Jim

    Now you are shifting your ground. You said:

    “Deaths are completely within the parameters of recent years for the time of year.”

    And that statement is false!

  59. “And that statement is false!”

    It depends on your assessment of ‘recent’. I would say that in terms of the severity of the measures the State is taking (certainly unprecedented since WW2, in fact arguably unprecedented ever in the history of the UK), recent has to mean more than ‘the last 5 years’. At the absolute very least a decade, but I would argue that a generation (25 years ish) should be the lowest baseline to compare the current situation with past episodes of respiratory illnesses. Its not as if the flu is an occasional visitor to our shores, its endemic and episodes of fluctuating severity happen every winter. We have flu crises every winter. So if there has been a winter within the last 25 years with a more severe flu outbreak than what we are experiencing now then there is no grounds to claim the current situation is anything other than completely within known parameters.

Leave a Reply

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