3 ms·

> based on modelling which has repeatedly been proven incorrect it's absolutely not about modelling, it's about real-world stats in this case. you can just see

> based on modelling which has repeatedly been proven incorrect it's absolutely not about modelling, it's about real-world stats in this case. you can just see the numbers. but as for modelling, I believe the Imperial group predicted "worst case 300K dead" for the pandemic. The UK is already halfway there by official stats, never mind excess deaths. Certainly it's hard to model complex systems but it's not really plausible to argue that they haven't got it right to a first approximation. It's not about arbitrary lockdowns, it's about looking at the evidence in front of you and wonder how "the multi billion cost, the harm to mental health" might compare to an overflowing A&E room and many many preventable deaths just because we didn't lockdown a week earlier. I think we're not in a lockdown because the Tory backbenchers don't want to be, and Boris Johnson cares more about his political career than science, the NHS, or saving lives. That doesn't surprise me much, but what does surprise me is the sheer number of intelligent people seemingly ignoring the evidence.

brigandish 5y ago
> as for modelling, I believe the Imperial group predicted "worst case 300K dead" for the pandemic. The UK is already halfway there by official stats, never mind excess deaths. Certainly it's hard to model complex systems but it's not really plausible to argue that they haven't got it right to a first approximation. From the actual Imperial paper[1]: In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB That's next a graph labelled from Mar 2020 to Oct 2020, and the portion of the graph that is above zero appears to run from mid April to August. That isn't the only glaringly obvious mistake in the paper either. Still, I digress. You wrote: > It's not about arbitrary lockdowns, it's about looking at the evidence in front of you and wonder how "the multi billion cost, the harm to mental health" might compare to an overflowing A&E room and many many preventable deaths just because we didn't lockdown a week earlier. From the Macmillan Trust's recent report, The Forgotten 'C'? The impact of Covid-19 on cancer care: > Given the current recovery trajectories and worrying indications of the rise in Covid-19 cases across the UK,we consider these to be ‘best case’ scenarios. We believe if cancer referrals and screening do not return to pre-pandemic levels, the backlog could grow by almost 4,000 missing diagnoses every month, reaching over 100,000 by October next year. > Macmillan fears that for some people their chance of survival will be reduced and that untimely cancer diagnoses could result in significant loss of life > More than 650,000 people with cancer in the UK (22%) have experienced disruption to their cancer treatment or care > For around 150,000 people this included delayed, rescheduled or cancelled treatment.5 Of these, more than half (57%) told us they were worried that delays to their treatment could affect their chance of survival. If we're talking about preventable deaths and, like the Imperial paper, you don't wish to look at the figures, then I suggest you take a look at some of the personal stories included in the report, like Simon's: > it still took two and a half months to get my scan done, and then only as I’d ranted and complained. I then had a phone call towards the end of May, to tell me ‘I’m sorry Mr Green, you were right, the brain tumour has come back, and it’s now inoperable’. I was devastated. > Because of the Covid crisis no one could attend the hospital with me, and I had to deal with this news alone, I was speechless. > I should never have had that MRI cancelled. If they’d found it in March and operated straight away, could I have been around in 10, 20 or 40 years’ time? I’ll never know that. Maybe, just maybe, the backbenchers and, hence, Boris Johnson (due to their pressure) cares more about lives than their political careers, had you considered that? [1] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... [2] https://www.macmillan.org.uk/assets/forgotten-c-impact-of-covid-19-on-cancer-care.pdf https://www.macmillan.org.uk/assets/forgotten-c-impact-of-co... Edit: formatting

brigandish 5y ago

> as for modelling, I believe the Imperial group predicted "worst case 300K dead" for the pandemic. The UK is already halfway there by official stats, never mind excess deaths. Certainly it's hard to model complex systems but it's not really plausible to argue that they haven't got it right to a first approximation. From the actual Imperial paper[1]: In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB That's next a graph labelled from Mar 2020 to Oct 2020, and the portion of the graph that is above zero appears to run from mid April to August. That isn't the only glaringly obvious mistake in the paper either. Still, I digress. You wrote: > It's not about arbitrary lockdowns, it's about looking at the evidence in front of you and wonder how "the multi billion cost, the harm to mental health" might compare to an overflowing A&E room and many many preventable deaths just because we didn't lockdown a week earlier. From the Macmillan Trust's recent report, The Forgotten 'C'? The impact of Covid-19 on cancer care: > Given the current recovery trajectories and worrying indications of the rise in Covid-19 cases across the UK,we consider these to be ‘best case’ scenarios. We believe if cancer referrals and screening do not return to pre-pandemic levels, the backlog could grow by almost 4,000 missing diagnoses every month, reaching over 100,000 by October next year. > Macmillan fears that for some people their chance of survival will be reduced and that untimely cancer diagnoses could result in significant loss of life > More than 650,000 people with cancer in the UK (22%) have experienced disruption to their cancer treatment or care > For around 150,000 people this included delayed, rescheduled or cancelled treatment.5 Of these, more than half (57%) told us they were worried that delays to their treatment could affect their chance of survival. If we're talking about preventable deaths and, like the Imperial paper, you don't wish to look at the figures, then I suggest you take a look at some of the personal stories included in the report, like Simon's: > it still took two and a half months to get my scan done, and then only as I’d ranted and complained. I then had a phone call towards the end of May, to tell me ‘I’m sorry Mr Green, you were right, the brain tumour has come back, and it’s now inoperable’. I was devastated. > Because of the Covid crisis no one could attend the hospital with me, and I had to deal with this news alone, I was speechless. > I should never have had that MRI cancelled. If they’d found it in March and operated straight away, could I have been around in 10, 20 or 40 years’ time? I’ll never know that. Maybe, just maybe, the backbenchers and, hence, Boris Johnson (due to their pressure) cares more about lives than their political careers, had you considered that? [1] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... [2] https://www.macmillan.org.uk/assets/forgotten-c-impact-of-covid-19-on-cancer-care.pdf https://www.macmillan.org.uk/assets/forgotten-c-impact-of-co... Edit: formatting