Such lovely power

Locking down entire streets could be an important way of keeping outbreaks of new Covid variants under control, an expert has suggested.

Oh aye?

Step outta line and I’ll lock down your street sonny.

Who doesn’t think that such a power, if extant, will be misused?

13 thoughts on “Such lovely power”

  1. Fake news from some random “expert”. The Tele is becoming synonymous with false stories that whip up the climate of fear.

    And how will such power be used if it’s a main road?

  2. Even the hard Left are pushing continued, hard lockdowns. They clearly see Evil Tory Capitalism crashing under the weight of debt etc, leading to the proles rising up and seizing control. With them in charge, natch.

  3. Seen elsewhere: When politicians see light at the end of the tunnel, they order the building of more tunnel.

  4. This is how it started in Italy. First lockdown a village, then a town, then a city, finally the whole country. It’s impossible to see if it made the slightest difference to the virus.

  5. Ah… the famous “asymptomatic contagion” ….

    Which is not in any way proven to actually exist, and would fall into the category “risk of being alive” anyway. You can insert every respiratory pathogen in that concept. Including charmers like bubonic plague, TB, and theoretically even HIV…

    Because it’s impossible to prove you have not got “something” if you don’t have the symptoms.

    Some people really like us locked up for life, it seems…

    Where’s the Lions?

  6. Bloke in North Dorset


    “ Ah… the famous “asymptomatic contagion” ….”

    Some good analysis here and in previous posts:

    “ Smashing the “1 in 3 people with Covid-19 have no symptoms” claim – and what it means about the true number of ‘cases’

    Norman Fenton[1], Martin Neil, Scott McLachlan

    Queen Mary University of London

    One of the most persistent and widely publicised claims made by the UK government and its scientific advisers about SARS-Cov-2 is that “1 in 3 people who have the virus have no symptoms”.

    However, using data from a study of asymptomatics at Cambridge [1] we show that both the “1 in 3” claim and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) infection rate estimates are exaggerated. The full analysis is provided in [2], but here we provide a simplified summary and explanation.

    The Cambridge study uses PCR tests on asymptomatic people, and a person is classified as having the virus if an initial positive test is confirmed in a follow-up test. Their data shows that, during a period when the ONS estimated the infection rate was 0.71%, an average of only 1 in 4,867 people (0.00205%) with no symptoms had the virus at any time. Although this does not tell us how many people with the virus had no symptoms, we can conclude the following (the formal proofs are provided in [2]):

    Conclusion 1: If the ONS reported infection rate, 0.71%, is correct, then at most 2.9% (1 in 34) of people with the virus have no symptoms, and not 1 in 3 as claimed by the government.

    Informal explanation: The population of Cambridge is 129,000. So, since only 1 in 4867 asymptomatics have the virus, the maximum possible number of asymptomatics with the virus is 27. If the ONS claimed infection rate is correct, then 0.71% of people in Cambridge would have the virus. This is about 916 people. Hence, at most 27 out of 916 with the virus had no symptoms. That is a maximum of 2.9% (27/916), 1 in 34.

    But, on the other hand, it tells us:

    Conclusion 2: If the government claim that “1 in 3 people with the virus has no symptoms” is correct, then the ONS reported infection rate must be at most 0.06%. This would mean the reported rate of 0.71% is at least 11 times greater than the true infection rate.

    Informal explanation: We already noted that in Cambridge the maximum number of asymptomatics with the virus is 27. But if 1 in 3 people with the virus have no symptoms, then the maximum total number of people with the virus is three times that number, 81. That means a maximum of 81 out of 129,000 have the virus. Thus, the maximum infection rate consistent with the government’s claim is 0.06% (81/129,000) and not 0.71%.

    Hence, the UK government claim “1 in 3” claim and the ONS infection rate claim cannot both be simultaneously true.”

  7. BiND

    Both are wrong? Ioannidis (Stanford), taking only anti-bodies into account and nothing else (ie, perhaps more likely erring on the high side), has come up with lower IFR numbers than 0.7% for 1st world ageing countries in the west.

  8. @BiND,

    You don’t really need fancy statistics to know the 1-in-3 is the bull’s nadgers.
    If there were that many, there’d already be a fair number of serious scientific articles in Prestigious Publications about the phenomenon, simply because they’d be easy to find and it would give us serious hints as to why this relatively simple virus hits some as hard as it does.

    Yet there are no publications anywhere about people who , against all knowledge about this virus and its infection- and propagation pattern, manage to completely ( or even mostly) fail to display any symptoms while sporting at least a mild top-bottom lung infection with a virus titer high enough to make them actually contagious above the endemic background presence of the virus.

    While under the gentle whip of Mother Nature nothing is impossible, this is.. shall we say.. highly implausible, with confidence ( statistical or otherwise ).
    After all, if the 1-in-3 were true, there would by now have been thousands of such cases known in the UK alone..

  9. Given some of the claims for ‘unusual’ properties of Covid and continuous worries it wouldn’t act normally (all the assumptions it wouldn’t be seasonal) has often made me wonder if government believe it’s artificial so won’t act normally just can’t conclusively prove it

Leave a Reply

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