Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 112 of 289 < 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 10.31am
Originally posted by georgenorman Scotland locked down even harder than us, and have worse stats than England. Harder? In different ways, with different timings sometimes, but harder is an emotive term. The stats are caused by a complex tangle of factors. You could take the English regions and find differences. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 10.31am

Originally posted by georgenorman

Scotland locked down even harder than us, and have worse stats than England.

Harder? In different ways, with different timings sometimes, but harder is an emotive term. The stats are caused by a complex tangle of factors. You could take the English regions and find differences.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 23 Jun 23 10.33am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle There is a risk involved in getting out of bed. The real question is the size of the risk, and whether that is outweighed by the benefit.s Such decisions, like many others, need to be taken collectively so that collectively we benefit. You want to take daft decisions, based on a misunderstanding of the risks both to yourself and others, on your own. That's pure selfishness. It shows a complete lack of responsibility. As I have told you before I made the informed decision about the health of my body. I made a risk assessment. I looked at the pros and cons and what risks are associated with getting the vaccine. And decided against it. It's not selfishness it's called making an informed decision that only affects me and no one else. I will not put my health at risk just so you can come out from hiding behind your sofa.
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

23 Jun 23 10.33am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There is a risk involved in getting out of bed.

The real question is the size of the risk, and whether that is outweighed by the benefit.s

Such decisions, like many others, need to be taken collectively so that collectively we benefit.

You want to take daft decisions, based on a misunderstanding of the risks both to yourself and others, on your own.

That's pure selfishness. It shows a complete lack of responsibility.

As I have told you before I made the informed decision about the health of my body. I made a risk assessment. I looked at the pros and cons and what risks are associated with getting the vaccine. And decided against it.

It's not selfishness it's called making an informed decision that only affects me and no one else. I will not put my health at risk just so you can come out from hiding behind your sofa.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 23 Jun 23 1.41pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The Daily Sceptic??? Hardly an unbiased source. Just look at who writes for it! This is the BBC article it seeks, unsuccessfully, to ridicule. It is balanced, fair and objective in trying to make sense of the figures. New Zealand locked down even harder than us, and have better stats than Sweden. Sweden may not have formally locked down, having such a compliant population, greater equality, efficient health service and well spread density there was less need, but they did introduce measures, especially in cities. [Link] Once again the hypocrite who tells you to look beyond bias against his sources yet does nothing but attack other people's sources with his bias. The article uses real world statistics to prove its point: You can't.....all you have are studies that haven't been reflected into real world consequences from sources that are probably funded from the usual suspects. Once again, the reason New Zealand has low mortality is simple....it has a very low population density. That's obviously going to reduce transmission. Sweden isn't an island and there are several countries in Europe with comparable situations and the difference was it didn't listen to people like you throwing away generational wealth on a pipe dream that's turned into a nightmare. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Jun 2023 2.02pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

23 Jun 23 1.41pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The Daily Sceptic???

Hardly an unbiased source. Just look at who writes for it!

This is the BBC article it seeks, unsuccessfully, to ridicule.

It is balanced, fair and objective in trying to make sense of the figures.

New Zealand locked down even harder than us, and have better stats than Sweden. Sweden may not have formally locked down, having such a compliant population, greater equality, efficient health service and well spread density there was less need, but they did introduce measures, especially in cities.

[Link]

Once again the hypocrite who tells you to look beyond bias against his sources yet does nothing but attack other people's sources with his bias.

The article uses real world statistics to prove its point: You can't.....all you have are studies that haven't been reflected into real world consequences from sources that are probably funded from the usual suspects.

Once again, the reason New Zealand has low mortality is simple....it has a very low population density. That's obviously going to reduce transmission.

Sweden isn't an island and there are several countries in Europe with comparable situations and the difference was it didn't listen to people like you throwing away generational wealth on a pipe dream that's turned into a nightmare.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Jun 2023 2.02pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 23 Jun 23 1.45pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle [Link] We know that the excess death rates are due to Covid and the impact of the pandemic on health service provision and use. What we don’t know is what the situation now would have been had we not taken the steps we did. A study isn't evidence of real world effects. Many studies end up just being wrong and you can find numerous examples of different studies ending up saying the exact opposite of each other. It isn't evidence. Real world statistics are evidence. And you have none, because transmission went up....if I remember correctly seasonal weather was the usual barometer....as with all airborne viruses. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

23 Jun 23 1.45pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

[Link]

We know that the excess death rates are due to Covid and the impact of the pandemic on health service provision and use.

What we don’t know is what the situation now would have been had we not taken the steps we did.

A study isn't evidence of real world effects. Many studies end up just being wrong and you can find numerous examples of different studies ending up saying the exact opposite of each other.

It isn't evidence.

Real world statistics are evidence.

And you have none, because transmission went up....if I remember correctly seasonal weather was the usual barometer....as with all airborne viruses.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 23 Jun 23 1.47pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It was in the stats, but ignored by the "critic". It simply points out that trying to draw comparisons between completely different scenarios to provide support for a debunked theory, like the "GBD", is total nonsense. So is claiming lockdown was the best option in every case. Everyone I know who contracted COVID got it during lockdown. Scotland's was longer and pubs, etc, were closed for longer but the stats were worse.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

23 Jun 23 1.47pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It was in the stats, but ignored by the "critic". It simply points out that trying to draw comparisons between completely different scenarios to provide support for a debunked theory, like the "GBD", is total nonsense.

So is claiming lockdown was the best option in every case. Everyone I know who contracted COVID got it during lockdown. Scotland's was longer and pubs, etc, were closed for longer but the stats were worse.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 23 Jun 23 3.56pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Harder? In different ways, with different timings sometimes, but harder is an emotive term. The stats are caused by a complex tangle of factors. You could take the English regions and find differences. Here we go, the usual yeah but, no but, nonsense from HOL's version of Vicky Pollard. Scotland's Covid regulations were more restrictive and ridiculous than England's but very much in tune with what you think was necessary, yet their Covid outcomes were worse than England's.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

23 Jun 23 3.56pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Here we go, the usual yeah but, no but, nonsense from HOL's version of Vicky Pollard.

Scotland's Covid regulations were more restrictive and ridiculous than England's but very much in tune with what you think was necessary, yet their Covid outcomes were worse than England's.

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 23 Jun 23 4.56pm
All this fuss and bed wetting over somthing with a 99 percent survival rate.
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

23 Jun 23 4.56pm

All this fuss and bed wetting over somthing with a 99 percent survival rate.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.28pm
Originally posted by eaglesdare As I have told you before I made the informed decision about the health of my body. I made a risk assessment. I looked at the pros and cons and what risks are associated with getting the vaccine. And decided against it. It's not selfishness it's called making an informed decision that only affects me and no one else. I will not put my health at risk just so you can come out from hiding behind your sofa. Wrong on every level. You didn’t make an “informed” decision you made a misinformed one. That’s really obvious to any with any kind of objectivity. It doesn’t just affect only you for reasons I have patiently explained many times. No decision in a pandemic only affects you unless you completely isolate yourself. You didn’t. You flew using falsified documentation. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.28pm

Originally posted by eaglesdare

It's not selfishness it's called making an informed decision that only affects me and no one else. I will not put my health at risk just so you can come out from hiding behind your sofa.

Wrong on every level.

You didn’t make an “informed” decision you made a misinformed one. That’s really obvious to any with any kind of objectivity.

It doesn’t just affect only you for reasons I have patiently explained many times. No decision in a pandemic only affects you unless you completely isolate yourself. You didn’t. You flew using falsified documentation.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.44pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Once again the hypocrite who tells you to look beyond bias against his sources yet does nothing but attack other people's sources with his bias. The article uses real world statistics to prove its point: You can't.....all you have are studies that haven't been reflected into real world consequences from sources that are probably funded from the usual suspects. Once again, the reason New Zealand has low mortality is simple....it has a very low population density. That's obviously going to reduce transmission. Sweden isn't an island and there are several countries in Europe with comparable situations and the difference was it didn't listen to people like you throwing away generational wealth on a pipe dream that's turned into a nightmare. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Jun 2023 2.02pm) My only bias is objectivity! The article cherry picked real world statistics and then spun them. The BBC article didn’t. Sure NZ has a low density but so does Sweden in comparison to us and most other Western countries. Sweden had to modify its approach following heavy internal criticism and although it had no need to go as far as we did, due to all the mitigating factors, it still introduced restrictions until the vaccines were available. NZ locked down hard and early. A friend of mine, visiting family, got trapped there for months. They did though manage to avoid importing Covid for a long time thus shortening the gap to the vaccine availability. No one at all welcomes the impact of lockdowns and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. They were regarded, by those with the responsibility for assessing all the complexities, as the least bad option. Not good. Just better than not doing it. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.44pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Once again the hypocrite who tells you to look beyond bias against his sources yet does nothing but attack other people's sources with his bias.

Once again, the reason New Zealand has low mortality is simple....it has a very low population density. That's obviously going to reduce transmission.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Jun 2023 2.02pm)

My only bias is objectivity!

The article cherry picked real world statistics and then spun them. The BBC article didn’t.

Sure NZ has a low density but so does Sweden in comparison to us and most other Western countries. Sweden had to modify its approach following heavy internal criticism and although it had no need to go as far as we did, due to all the mitigating factors, it still introduced restrictions until the vaccines were available. NZ locked down hard and early. A friend of mine, visiting family, got trapped there for months. They did though manage to avoid importing Covid for a long time thus shortening the gap to the vaccine availability.

No one at all welcomes the impact of lockdowns and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. They were regarded, by those with the responsibility for assessing all the complexities, as the least bad option. Not good. Just better than not doing it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 23 Jun 23 7.44pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Wrong on every level. You didn’t make an “informed” decision you made a misinformed one. That’s really obvious to any with any kind of objectivity. It doesn’t just affect only you for reasons I have patiently explained many times. No decision in a pandemic only affects you unless you completely isolate yourself. You didn’t. You flew using falsified documentation. I have also patiently explained that I made an informed decision based on the information provided. I made the decision based on my health. Somthing that does not affect anyone else. We both looked at the facts and information or lack their of at the time and made decisions that affect our own health. And yes I had to use falsified documentation. Somthing I should never of had to do. I used it for my job somthing I needed to keep my job and also for leisure activities.
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

23 Jun 23 7.44pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Wrong on every level.

You didn’t make an “informed” decision you made a misinformed one. That’s really obvious to any with any kind of objectivity.

I have also patiently explained that I made an informed decision based on the information provided. I made the decision based on my health. Somthing that does not affect anyone else.

We both looked at the facts and information or lack their of at the time and made decisions that affect our own health.

And yes I had to use falsified documentation. Somthing I should never of had to do. I used it for my job somthing I needed to keep my job and also for leisure activities.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.47pm
Originally posted by georgenorman Here we go, the usual yeah but, no but, nonsense from HOL's version of Vicky Pollard. Scotland's Covid regulations were more restrictive and ridiculous than England's but very much in tune with what you think was necessary, yet their Covid outcomes were worse than England's. Then I hope they learn the lesson and go harder, earlier the next time because of the special factors there that are causing this. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.47pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

Here we go, the usual yeah but, no but, nonsense from HOL's version of Vicky Pollard.

Scotland's Covid regulations were more restrictive and ridiculous than England's but very much in tune with what you think was necessary, yet their Covid outcomes were worse than England's.

Then I hope they learn the lesson and go harder, earlier the next time because of the special factors there that are causing this.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.59pm
Originally posted by eaglesdare All this fuss and bed wetting over somthing with a 99 percent survival rate. Would you.be happy to catch a virus with a 1% chance it will kill you? Would you be happy to see 673,000 deaths from Covid? Would you be happy to see our hospitals overwhelmed whilst they save those who nearly die as well.as caring for those who do? The backlogs and excess deaths we are witnessing would be a paradise in comparison. 99% survival would be a complete disaster. Yet you dismiss it as bed wetting and expect to be taken seriously. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 7.59pm

Originally posted by eaglesdare

All this fuss and bed wetting over somthing with a 99 percent survival rate.

Would you.be happy to catch a virus with a 1% chance it will kill you?

Would you be happy to see 673,000 deaths from Covid?

Would you be happy to see our hospitals overwhelmed whilst they save those who nearly die as well.as caring for those who do? The backlogs and excess deaths we are witnessing would be a paradise in comparison.

99% survival would be a complete disaster. Yet you dismiss it as bed wetting and expect to be taken seriously.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 112 of 289 < 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors