HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

CN211276 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:50 am However the figures are interpreted, there can be no doubt that thousands of deaths would have been prevented had the lockdowns been sooner. Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead in March 2000 was madness. Football authorities took matters into their own hands by cancelling fixtures before lock down. Because the lockdowns were implemented too late they went on for longer than would otherwise have been the case. Made no. difference to No. 10 though.

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:43 am

CN211276 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:50 am However the figures are interpreted, there can be no doubt that thousands of deaths would have been prevented had the lockdowns been sooner. Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead in March 2000 was madness. Football authorities took matters into their own hands by cancelling fixtures before lock down. Because the lockdowns were implemented too late they went on for longer than would otherwise have been the case. Made no. difference to No. 10 though.

Unfortunately, without knowing the percentage of the 150,000 had pre-existing, potentially terminal, conditions it is impossible to say how many of them would have died of the pre-existing condition irrespective of the positive test.

Lockdowns were implemented on the basis of modelling. The decision of the cabinet in December 2021 not to follow the “science”, by not implementing more onerous restrictions, allowed the predictions of several models to be tested. The data shows that the models massively overestimated the numbers of hospital admissions and deaths. It is more than likely that previous modelling and predictions were equally erroneous.

savvypaul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:02 pm

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:43 am

CN211276 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:50 am However the figures are interpreted, there can be no doubt that thousands of deaths would have been prevented had the lockdowns been sooner. Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead in March 2000 was madness. Football authorities took matters into their own hands by cancelling fixtures before lock down. Because the lockdowns were implemented too late they went on for longer than would otherwise have been the case. Made no. difference to No. 10 though.

Unfortunately, without knowing the percentage of the 150,000 had pre-existing, potentially terminal, conditions it is impossible to say how many of them would have died of the pre-existing condition irrespective of the positive test.

Lockdowns were implemented on the basis of modelling. The decision of the cabinet in December 2021 not to follow the “science”, by not implementing more onerous restrictions, allowed the predictions of several models to be tested. The data shows that the models massively overestimated the numbers of hospital admissions and deaths. It is more than likely that previous modelling and predictions were equally erroneous.

Different variant. Not directly comparable. But more than likely that the later models were more advanced as more relevant data was available. Nonetheless, Johnson took a big gamble by letting it play out with minimal restrictions, given the very high number of daily infections. Luckily, Omicron has proven to be a lot less severe than previous variants.

The More or Less programme was discussing your first point, but I didn't hear all of it, so I will catch up on iplayer, some time.

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:26 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:02 pm

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:43 am

Unfortunately, without knowing the percentage of the 150,000 had pre-existing, potentially terminal, conditions it is impossible to say how many of them would have died of the pre-existing condition irrespective of the positive test.

Lockdowns were implemented on the basis of modelling. The decision of the cabinet in December 2021 not to follow the “science”, by not implementing more onerous restrictions, allowed the predictions of several models to be tested. The data shows that the models massively overestimated the numbers of hospital admissions and deaths. It is more than likely that previous modelling and predictions were equally erroneous.

Different variant. Not directly comparable. But more than likely that the later models were more advanced as more relevant data was available. Nonetheless, Johnson took a big gamble by letting it play out with minimal restrictions, given the very high number of daily infections. Luckily, Omicron has proven to be a lot less severe than previous variants.

The More or Less programme was discussing your first point, but I didn't hear all of it, so I will catch up on iplayer, some time.

Omicron is easier to catch but has markedly less severe symptoms. Thus as earlier variants were not as easy to catch it isn't possible to directly compare the predictions. However, as the models were based on minimal data, it is likely that they were pessimistic, for obvious reasons. The predictions for July 2021 and September 2021 seriously exaggerated the numbers too, and that was Delta. If, as so many have suggested, we had "trusted the science" we would have remained in lock down or under more onerous restrictions for considerably longer than was actually the case.

savvypaul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:37 pm

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:26 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 12:02 pm

Different variant. Not directly comparable. But more than likely that the later models were more advanced as more relevant data was available. Nonetheless, Johnson took a big gamble by letting it play out with minimal restrictions, given the very high number of daily infections. Luckily, Omicron has proven to be a lot less severe than previous variants.

The More or Less programme was discussing your first point, but I didn't hear all of it, so I will catch up on iplayer, some time.

Omicron is easier to catch but has markedly less severe symptoms. Thus as earlier variants were not as easy to catch it isn't possible to directly compare the predictions. However, as the models were based on minimal data, it is likely that they were pessimistic, for obvious reasons. The predictions for July 2021 and September 2021 seriously exaggerated the numbers too, and that was Delta. If, as so many have suggested, we had "trusted the science" we would have remained in lock down or under more onerous restrictions for considerably longer than was actually the case.

There were a range of models and, therefore, a range of possible outcomes. Seems to me that you are being rather selective with your hindsight.

The topic in this thread is Johnson. Seems to me that he was slow to lockdown in early 2020, slow to take action in September 2020 (more deaths in the second wave than the first) despite the lessons from earlier and with no vaccine in sight at that stage, and took a massive gamble (because he had run out of political capital with his backbenchers) in Xmas 2021 on a highly infectious variant that they did not know for certain was less severe.

Vaccine roll out is an undoubted success, but Johnson has failed (along with most other world leaders) to work on the international stage to vaccinate in less developed countries. Which is why we remain especially open to more variants, and our existing vaccines are not guaranteed to work on them.