Was Lockdown Necessary?

Chocci

Member
So are you staying that if we hadn't have implemented the lockdown we'd have had the same/less deaths? (purely looking at the number of deaths, both anything related to it like the economic impact).

If the peak of death was 2 weeks into the lockdown, with a virus having a 14 day incubation period, isn't there valid argument to say that the growth rate for deaths would have continued to grow, rather than peak 2 weeks after lockdown guidance was put in place?
Takes on average 3-6 weeks from infection to death so surely shows deaths going down after 2 weeks of lockdown had nothing to do with lockdown but everything to do with the public practicing social distancing in the weeks leading up to lockdown.

Although, I did agree with the original lockdown for 3 weeks as it did appear that the nhs could be overwhelmed. I disagree that it needed extending just like I think extending the furlough until October is a big mistake. Most of my mates work in construction and they have no plans to go back to work until the end of summer now at the earliest. They're loving it as now just working 2-3 days per week on each others houses.
 

Ruperts slippers

Distinguished Member
If we read the Sage minutes, the virus peaked within 5-6 weeks starting in MARCH, fell rapidly, midway thru APRIL r number was below 1 pretty quickly.

The result of the measures are, huge debt, busmans holiday senario, scared population, who are not spending, business demand is low and slowly picking up. I also think you'll find the furlough splitting liability measure to come in later will result in job losses.

Basically a mess. So yes, the lockdown measures were a mistake.
 
Last edited:

Panavision

Well-known Member
How many BAME people live in Sweden?
There are so many factors to take in when comparing countries to determine which country handled the virus the best.

London is the international hub, for example. What's air traffic like in Sweden? How many passengers travel between cities in Sweden compared to the UK? Etc.
 

Philly112

Distinguished Member
'Deaths from lockdown infections' is meant to show what?

At 1% mortality, you'd expect that number of deaths. But you don't accept 1% mortality of course.

The 'INFECTIONS AT LOCKDOWN' figures are pure guesses with zero scientific data to back them up

They're based on antibody tests in various countries and correlated backwards. The UK figure has been used a few times at the briefing. I assume you don't accept the antibody tests as being of any use.

Personally, I think far far more were already infected before lockdown and that the virus has been in the UK since December. Tenfold increase from 350 to 3,500 in hospital admissions in early January for flu which many could have been Covid19. We now know it was in Paris in December.

I didn't know the 'flu' numbers. If so, can you explain the lull between early January and March?

The fact remains that the peak of deaths was before any potential benefit of lockdown measures

I don 't know if that's a fact or not.



Anyway, we'll find out in a few weeks as infections should go back up to around 10,000+ per day if lockdown was that effective
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Takes on average 3-6 weeks from infection to death so surely shows deaths going down after 2 weeks of lockdown had nothing to do with lockdown but everything to do with the public practicing social distancing in the weeks leading up to lockdown.

Although, I did agree with the original lockdown for 3 weeks as it did appear that the nhs could be overwhelmed. I disagree that it needed extending just like I think extending the furlough until October is a big mistake. Most of my mates work in construction and they have no plans to go back to work until the end of summer now at the earliest. They're loving it as now just working 2-3 days per week on each others houses.
Ok, so social distancing was effective up to a point. Would that have continued without the (relatively vague) lockdown guidance?

With regards to people enjoying being furloughed, that's ok for those who can afford to live on 80% of £2500 per month, many more people who are furloughed can't so I'm not sure that's really any more than a subset of people enjoying the benefit.
 

realfrankturner

Well-known Member
Ok, so social distancing was effective up to a point. Would that have continued without the (relatively vague) lockdown guidance?

With regards to people enjoying being furloughed, that's ok for those who can afford to live on 80% of £2500 per month, many more people who are furloughed can't so I'm not sure that's really any more than a subset of people enjoying the benefit.
Also unless you're self employed, furloughed people go back when their company tells them to, it isn't there choice.

Bu to answer the question, yes lockdown had to happen, many things will have been learnt if it ever happens again too, nothing is 100% perfect.
 

Lancia34

Distinguished Member
Knew I shouldn't have come into this thread and just stayed in the main one having the odd scan through it - so many polarizing views but the ones that say lockdown wasn't needed and things would have been the same or better without it...Wow! That's some crazy delusional thing there :eek:

Lockdown should have been earlier and harder and we might have been at a point now when opening schools could have been a safe option...which currently it is not, even for reception and year 1.
They should have had bigger fines and/or some kind of social record if broken and basically been much, much harsher on those idiots who have flagrantly abused and ignored it.

Right, anyway, better get back to working :)
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
They should have had bigger fines and/or some kind of social record if broken and basically been much, much harsher on those idiots who have flagrantly abused and ignored it.
I bet half of the idiots wouldn't have enough cash to pay massive fines. Can't put them in jail either as we're too soft and the jails are full.
 

Chocci

Member
At 1% mortality, you'd expect that number of deaths. But you don't accept 1% mortality of course...

They're based on antibody tests in various countries and correlated backwards. The UK figure has been used a few times at the briefing. I assume you don't accept the antibody tests as being of any use.
If you looked at my other post, you would see a spreadsheet showing an analysis of all major antibody tests. Result = 0.27% mortality rate as of 2 weeks ago.

Screen Shot 06-03-20 at 11.47 AM.JPG


The fact remains that the peak of deaths was before any potential benefit of lockdown measures

I don 't know if that's a fact or not.
Screen Shot 06-03-20 at 11.46 AM.JPG
 
Last edited:

domtheone

Distinguished Member

Chocci

Member
Knew I shouldn't have come into this thread and just stayed in the main one having the odd scan through it - so many polarizing views but the ones that say lockdown wasn't needed and things would have been the same or better without it...Wow! That's some crazy delusional thing there :eek:

Lockdown should have been earlier and harder and we might have been at a point now when opening schools could have been a safe option...which currently it is not, even for reception and year 1.
They should have had bigger fines and/or some kind of social record if broken and basically been much, much harsher on those idiots who have flagrantly abused and ignored it.

Right, anyway, better get back to working :)
'Data from Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (RKI) show that in early March the reproduction number for Covid-19 had risen rapidly before peaking on about March 10. By March 21, the reproduction number dropped below 1.0.

It wasn’t until March 23 that the German government decreed a lockdown. As the RKI chart shows, after the lockdown was enacted, the reproduction number did not change at all – suggesting it had little to no effect.

The chart is on page 14 of the RKI report here: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Archiv/2020/Ausgaben/17_20.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

It was the same institute that had fanned the panic over Covid-19, when on March 20 it forecast a best-case scenario of 300,000 dead for Germany. The actual death toll stands at approximately 8,500.

Norway’s health chief recently conceded that shutdowns may not have been needed to tame Covid.

Initially Norwegian authorities – going on models developed by Imperial College London for Britain – feared the virus was rampant and only lockdown could get the assumed exponential growth rate down to a safe level of 1.

But a May 5 report published by the Norwegian public health authority has come to a striking conclusion: the virus was never spreading as fast as had been assumed and was already on the way out when lockdown was ordered.

Camilla Stoltenberg, director of Norway’s public health agency, told media: “Our assessment now, and I find that there is a broad consensus in relation to the reopening, was that one could probably achieve the same effect – and avoid part of the unfortunate repercussions – by not closing. But, instead, staying open with precautions to stop the spread.”'

 

Chocci

Member
At the end of the day, its like the brexit argument. People are fixed on their views and no amount of discussion really makes any difference

As I said earlier, the true outcome of whether social distancing would have been enough will be shown over the coming month

I pray its enough as we surely wont be going for another national lockdown. If needed, regional lockdowns are the only way forward.
 

starfarer

Well-known Member
If you looked at my other post, you would see a spreadsheet showing an analysis of all major antibody tests. Result = 0.27% mortality rate as of 2 weeks ago.
can you pls stop referencing this spreadsheet as a definite guide to IFR%? Most are PCR tests which is like snapshot at that certain time and possibilities remains that some got infected later. German superspreader and Gangelt are the same survey but included twice. Spanish and UK are missing. Santa Clara revised their data. I found these on quick look and there could be more flaws but these are enough not to take this seriously. Curious is this your work?
 

Philly112

Distinguished Member
If you looked at my other post, you would see a spreadsheet showing an analysis of all major antibody tests. Result = 0.27% mortality rate as of 2 weeks ago.

View attachment 1311204
Let's hope that number is right, and my 1% is wrong.
But your data table appears flawed. They're mainly just small local surveys, valid for what they are, but not useful for larger extrapolation. Where is the Spanish survey - 70,000 people, with 1.1% mortality. Widely reported, here and in the mainstream media.
 

Tight Git

Distinguished Member
All this thread shows is that figures can prove anything and that we can't even agree what those figures are!

Is it any wonder the world is in a mess?
 

iangreasby

Well-known Member
I wouldn't be using Sweden as a model example considering 'Sweden has 6.08 deaths per million inhabitants, higher than the UK, USA and Italy'.
Where have you got that figure from? On deaths per million Sweden are doing comfortably better than UK and Italy.
 

Chocci

Member
can you pls stop referencing this spreadsheet as a definite guide to IFR%? Most are PCR tests which is like snapshot at that certain time and possibilities remains that some got infected later. German superspreader and Gangelt are the same survey but included twice. Spanish and UK are missing. Santa Clara revised their data. I found these on quick look and there could be more flaws but these are enough not to take this seriously. Curious is this your work?
No, not my work :)

 

realfrankturner

Well-known Member

iangreasby

Well-known Member
Probably this?

Wouldn't it be more informative to look at the death rates over the full period of COVID though, not just the last 7 days? Sweden is 450 per million, compared with UK 580 per million.
 

realfrankturner

Well-known Member
Wouldn't it be more informative to look at the death rates over the full period of COVID though, not just the last 7 days? Sweden is 450 per million, compared with UK 580 per million.
One thing I have learned is there data and stats for pretty much any argument if you look hard enough.

But in my view Sweden should not be being used as an example at all to look to in a positive sense like some are, just compare them to there neighbouring Nordic countries too and it isn't positive reading.

Everyone has suffered, and there isn't a one perfect solution, so why people are trying to compare I am not sure. And especially not with Sweden.
 

Lancia34

Distinguished Member
Wouldn't it be more informative to look at the death rates over the full period of COVID though, not just the last 7 days? Sweden is 450 per million, compared with UK 580 per million.
The thing is Sweden's cases are not dropping off nearly as much as the UK. You just need to look at the graphs for the two and UK hit it's peak and drops similar to other countries that did lockdown whereas Sweden, although not as high peak, hasn't dropped effectively which kind of shows that it's still circulating in similar numbers as people haven't been locked down. The curve isn't flattening that well.
Yes it's a lot less cases but are they still going to have a problem with it over the coming months as surrounding countries get ti under control?


1591189812237.png


1591189832341.png
 

Chocci

Member
One thing I have learned is there data and stats for pretty much any argument if you look hard enough.

But in my view Sweden should not be being used as an example at all to look to in a positive sense like some are, just compare them to there neighbouring Nordic countries too and it isn't positive reading.

Everyone has suffered, and there isn't a one perfect solution, so why people are trying to compare I am not sure. And especially not with Sweden.
Because this is debating the necessity of a lockdown. Unless you know of a better example of a country that didn't lockdown for comparison ?
 

Chocci

Member
The thing is Sweden's cases are not dropping off nearly as much as the UK. You just need to look at the graphs for the two and UK hit it's peak and drops similar to other countries that did lockdown whereas Sweden, although not as high peak, hasn't dropped effectively which kind of shows that it's still circulating in similar numbers as people haven't been locked down. The curve isn't flattening that well.
Yes it's a lot less cases but are they still going to have a problem with it over the coming months as surrounding countries get ti under control?


View attachment 1311332

View attachment 1311333
Or conversely, Sweden numbers drop slowly and ours start increasing again with both countries ending with the same infection fatality rate but one hasn't a devastated economy.
 

realfrankturner

Well-known Member
Because this is debating the necessity of a lockdown. Unless you know of a better example of a country that didn't lockdown for comparison ?
It absolutely staggers my mind anyone would think we shouldn't have had a lockdown of any sort. Maybe the degrees of how long and the severity could be debated, but a lockdown was absolutely the right thing.

Also you have to compare the sizes of the countries as well, and the common sense of the average person, especially here, a lockdown had to happen here, no question about it.

I think the better question would be if Sweden had a proper lockdown would there numbers look more positive, and be more similiar to there Nordic neighbours? I'd say most probably.

Even they have said they regret not being tougher, Sweden have not done a good job at all, which is why I think it is a bit pointless comparing tbh.


A better debate would be how long the lockdown happened and the restrictions and the overall severity of it, whether that was all needed.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: New TVs, Samsung Q800T Soundbar review, IFA latest, Movie and AV News, B+W Brad Pitt

Latest News

AVForums Podcast: 5th July 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Sky comedy panel shows back to film new series
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Polk launches MagniFi 2 soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung pulls out of IFA 2020?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 28th June 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom