IOM Covid removing restrictions

[doc.fixit]

The question was aimed at Gladys but thanks for your response.

I'm sure I really am confused about the worlds responses and the current state of play. No one seems to know where it's all going or what to do about it.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

I agree with you.

Do you think any govt's response was adequate?

It is hard to say without actually living in those countries and understanding how the measures impact on a microcosm angle.  It is also difficult to measure a "success" ' is it cv numbers, is it economic, is it just how the population "feels".  

[hissingsid]

So the gutter press are at it again comparing the amount of people who may or may not die of other conditions  over 5 years with the amount of people who have died due to Covid or Covid aggravating a previous condition over 6 months .   You could not make it up.   I am old enough to remember when Newspapers printed facts, or the best information they were aware of, now it is all stupid opinions from  clowns who have not a clue but just want their 60 seconds of fame.  I do not buy papers but I do look at the headlines on the internet and no wonder people are getting depressed and frustrated what a lot of tosh.

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is hard to say without actually living in those countries and understanding how the measures impact on a microcosm angle.  It is also difficult to measure a "success" ' is it cv numbers, is it economic, is it just how the population "feels".  

Why not start with the number of "excess deaths" and maybe the rest will flow from there...?

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, wrighty said:

[...]  Like everything in the Mail it’s based on reasonable source material and then spun, or over-exaggerated, or headlines are taken out of context. 

It’s based on a SAGE briefing paper. The point is that lockdown has consequences. It’s been said all along that the government has to be careful that the cure isn’t worse than the disease. 75000 dying as a consequence is fine if 500000 are saved, at least in raw numbers.  But what if those 75000 have a total of 1 million years life left between them, and the 500000 have an average life expectancy of a year? How do you decide then? And that’s not even bringing in quality of life. 

In this case it's also based on a 'leaked' document so there may be two layers of spin going on.  But even the Mail piece makes the headline figures look shaky:

Quote

 

The document reveals 16,000 people died as a result of the chaos in hospitals and care homes in March and April alone.

It estimates a further 26,000 will lose their lives within a year if people continue to stay away from A&E and the problems in social care persist.

And an additional 31,900 could die over the next five years as a result of missed cancer diagnoses, cancelled operations and the health impacts of a recession.

 

But the 16,000[1] were a consequence of the outbreak - medical services were overwhelmed.  They really should be included in the deaths caused by the pandemic.  Is anyone suggesting that the NHS could have just gone ahead as normal, treating these patients and ignoring all those patients with Covid?  And that this would somehow make the disease and its consequences vanish?  Much of the media commentary on the outbreak seems to be based on magical thinking and a toddler-like entitlement that reality should automatically conform to their wishes and if it doesn't it's someone else's fault for not making this happen.

As to the 26,000 there should have been more encouragement for people to attend hospital with things such as suspected heart attacks, even during the height of the pandemic.  But that wasn't caused by lockdown[2] but by poor communication - for which the media should take its share of the blame.  As to 'problems in social care' some of those are caused by other government policies, but it's difficult to see how any could be caused by lockdown.

What we probably ought to be looking at is how many more died from Covid and related deaths because the UK government were too slow to lockdown.  Ferguson's estimate of 20,000 might have some elements of self-interest, but the UK did have fair warning of the spread of the pandemic (unlike say Italy) and failed to react speedily enough.  

 

[1]  Many of whom, especially in care homes, probably did die of Covid-19 anyway, but couldn't be properly diagnosed in the chaos and were excluded from the statistics. 

[2]  Which in any case would have reduced the need for things such as A&E attendances because of measures such as pubs being shut.  Indeed some regulations, such as the 40 mph speed limit over here, were introduced specifically to have this effect.

[piebaps]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

Germany.

They're so efficient

[The Old Git]

2 hours ago, pongo said:

Common sense is a fallacy.

I’ve been saying that since people first started stockpiling perishables at the start of all this. Bins were overflowing the following week. 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

Why not start with the number of "excess deaths" and maybe the rest will flow from there...?

Well, there's the dilemma.  You could have had low excess deaths but to achieve that, you had lock down and the consequent economic fallout and a general lack of support.  I would suggest that the starting point should be which countries have general support for their measures (how the people feel) and then look at their cv figures and economic position.

[the stinking enigma]

.

Edited September 26, 2020 by the stinking enigma

[wrighty]

4 hours ago, P.K. said:

"Like everything in the Mail" makes you sound as though you're a regular reader....?

No, but I once did a study of ‘back pain cures’ published there. In each case they’d taken an article published in a bona fide medical journal and then cherry picked the conclusions, or exaggerated the benefits, or paid no attention to the downsides etc. Perhaps instead of ‘everything’ in the Mail I should have said ‘a lot’. 
 

I get my news from The Economist, The British Medical Journal, and the BBC. I do the Guardian crossword, and occasionally The Times. I don’t choose my reading material to suit my political agenda, which is probably more left than you imagine PK. 

[Mr Helmut Fromage]

3 hours ago, Banker said:

Looks like public are biggest policer of restrictions!

https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/over-90-reports-of-covid-breaches-in-eight-weeks/

Irony alert from a self confessed curtain twitcher....

[doc.fixit]

Isn't the true situation as I previously suggested? ie, all of the worlds figures have different baselines and and have different definitions so are not only not accurate but also cannot be compared, believed or rationalised to be able to discuss them, believe them or come to any logical conclusions. We truly are in the new dark ages.

Edited September 26, 2020 by doc.fixit

[Uhtred]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

No, but I once did a study of ‘back pain cures’ published there. In each case they’d taken an article published in a bona fide medical journal and then cherry picked the conclusions, or exaggerated the benefits, or paid no attention to the downsides etc. Perhaps instead of ‘everything’ in the Mail I should have said ‘a lot’. 
 

I get my news from The Economist, The British Medical Journal, and the BBC. I do the Guardian crossword, and occasionally The Times. I don’t choose my reading material to suit my political agenda, which is probably more left than you imagine PK. 

The Daily Mail is an excellent paper - for hanging in one’s outside privy.

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Well, there's the dilemma.  You could have had low excess deaths but to achieve that, you had lock down and the consequent economic fallout and a general lack of support.  I would suggest that the starting point should be which countries have general support for their measures (how the people feel) and then look at their cv figures and economic position.

I don't see it as a dilemma.

The lesson from Sweden was clear. No lockdown did not result in a more favourable economic position at all. But it did mean an awful lot more fatalities compared to their Scandawegian neighbours.

The message is clear.

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

No, but I once did a study of ‘back pain cures’ published there. In each case they’d taken an article published in a bona fide medical journal and then cherry picked the conclusions, or exaggerated the benefits, or paid no attention to the downsides etc. Perhaps instead of ‘everything’ in the Mail I should have said ‘a lot’. 
 

I get my news from The Economist, The British Medical Journal, and the BBC. I do the Guardian crossword, and occasionally The Times. I don’t choose my reading material to suit my political agenda, which is probably more left than you imagine PK. 

I don't choose my reading material to suit a political agenda either.

I like to stay reasonably well informed, because in these very dark days it's important to do so, which is why I prefer decent information that's untainted with the political dogma of the owner(s).

Which in the UK actually leaves very little choice....