4 ms·

Isn’t the point that they didn’t close the country so that’s a massive up side. Here in the UK we closed everything (much too late to be effective), spent bill

Isn’t the point that they didn’t close the country so that’s a massive up side. Here in the UK we closed everything (much too late to be effective), spent billions on furloughing everyone, and still loads of people died, and now cases are going up again anyway. (For clarity - I’m not anti-lockdown. I haven’t been to a shop for months. I’m doing my bit either way)

wolco 6y ago
Now if you started sooner and if people took it more seriously perhaps numbers would be different.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  They did make it unnecessarily hard for people - the health minister went on live TV in late Feb and said it was about as deadly as Flu (no it's 10x more deadly). Then Boris Johnson went to a hospital and shook hands with Coronavirus patients and bragged about it (then got coronavirus). Then his top advisor broke lockdown by driving the length of the country (while he had coronavirus). Oh and our chief medial officer also got coronavirus. Couldn't ask for a less useful bunch of people.
  - elcritch 6y ago
    Currently the IFR is estimated between 0.2-0.6%, or roughly about 2-6x deadlier. That’ll looks to keep decreasing in Sweden, and elsewhere. It’s not unreasonable that if it turns out to be only 2-4x deadlier that many would consider it not much worse than a bad flu season. Especially if you give them absolute numbers for scale, including total deaths in their country every year.
    - jonplackett 6y ago
      I saw some research the other day that they think the decrease in death rate is because everyone is wearing masks and social distancing. Therefore anyone getting sick is getting a very low viral load compared to before. If comparing to flu we should compare to pre-lockdown, pre-mask death rate.
      - matz1 6y ago
        No, The decrease of death rate is because more testing done on more people. The more you test, the larger the number of asymptomatic/mild symptom case you have, thus decrease the death rate.
        elcritch 6y ago
        I could see both, and likely both would need to be part of estimation. It's not binary, but likely, 20% due to mask lowering viral exposure loads, 50% due to more healthy people (hence asymptomatic) getting the virus. However, that doesn't invalidate the overall comparisons. Countries like Sweden have a lowering death rate despite no broad mask wearing (https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/ https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-swed...). You can see an example graph here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-lockdown-sweden-death-rate-worst-country-covid-19-a9539206.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-...
pjc50 6y ago
The UK has been characteristically incompetent; missing PPE, incoherent advice, incoherent track and trace (somewhat substituted by local authorities actions), pushing people into old people's homes without testing, and the Barnard Castle incident. How many cabinet ministers have you seen in masks?
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Well, Boris and Hancock have no need - they just went and got coronavirus by being idiots.

wolco 6y ago

Now if you started sooner and if people took it more seriously perhaps numbers would be different.

jonplackett 6y ago
They did make it unnecessarily hard for people - the health minister went on live TV in late Feb and said it was about as deadly as Flu (no it's 10x more deadly). Then Boris Johnson went to a hospital and shook hands with Coronavirus patients and bragged about it (then got coronavirus). Then his top advisor broke lockdown by driving the length of the country (while he had coronavirus). Oh and our chief medial officer also got coronavirus. Couldn't ask for a less useful bunch of people.
- elcritch 6y ago
  Currently the IFR is estimated between 0.2-0.6%, or roughly about 2-6x deadlier. That’ll looks to keep decreasing in Sweden, and elsewhere. It’s not unreasonable that if it turns out to be only 2-4x deadlier that many would consider it not much worse than a bad flu season. Especially if you give them absolute numbers for scale, including total deaths in their country every year.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    I saw some research the other day that they think the decrease in death rate is because everyone is wearing masks and social distancing. Therefore anyone getting sick is getting a very low viral load compared to before. If comparing to flu we should compare to pre-lockdown, pre-mask death rate.
    - matz1 6y ago
      No, The decrease of death rate is because more testing done on more people. The more you test, the larger the number of asymptomatic/mild symptom case you have, thus decrease the death rate.
      - elcritch 6y ago
        I could see both, and likely both would need to be part of estimation. It's not binary, but likely, 20% due to mask lowering viral exposure loads, 50% due to more healthy people (hence asymptomatic) getting the virus. However, that doesn't invalidate the overall comparisons. Countries like Sweden have a lowering death rate despite no broad mask wearing (https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/ https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-swed...). You can see an example graph here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-lockdown-sweden-death-rate-worst-country-covid-19-a9539206.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-...

pjc50 6y ago

The UK has been characteristically incompetent; missing PPE, incoherent advice, incoherent track and trace (somewhat substituted by local authorities actions), pushing people into old people's homes without testing, and the Barnard Castle incident. How many cabinet ministers have you seen in masks?

jonplackett 6y ago
Well, Boris and Hancock have no need - they just went and got coronavirus by being idiots.