EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
You seemed in favour of a lockdown to me and were certainly in favour of mass testing. Lots of action because better to be seen doing something just in case.
Now you seem to be moving away from the lockdown and mass testing isn’t the answer because with hindsight this way (South Korea) now seems best and that is after all what you always said well at least no one can find where you didn’t outright say it wouldn’t work.
That’s the great thing with hindsight or Monday morning quarter backing, you can never be wrong.
The above are all about your failings ETS not mine. You are the one that divides the world up in to simple binaries and then has to place everyone in each of those camps. You have divided the world up in to your camp 'anti lock down' and then by extension everyone not in that camp is therefore pro lock down. That the universe does not work this way is irrelevant to you.
Firstly
I have NEVER argued that lock down was definitively the 'right' thing to be doing. I have consistently argued that no one, myself included can know such a thing definitely. That was my position when such measures were first proposed and remains my position still. Totally consistent.
What I have also done, in the face of those who claim to know with certainty that lock down is worse than the benefits and who use 'arguments' like 'this outbreak is not worse than regular periodic flu outbreaks seen every 5 or 190 years, it is all just media hype', is to point out facts. Like the fact that in England and wales since this event has started we have twice seen total deaths in a week that have exceeded any previous weekly spikes in total deaths since at least 1968 flu outbreak and probably since 1917/8 outbreak. This is NOT an argument in favour of lock down. It is an argument that the facts we already have show the event is bigger that all previous flu outbreaks that are seen every 5 or 10 years. That this event that is still ongoing is already of a 'once every 50 years' or 'once every 100 years' event.
If you think all this is just bull "ooops" then just go and find the posts where I was arguing that lock down is the right thing to do, rather than refuting false arguments from those trying to prove is was not the right thing to do. You will not find them because they do not exist. You think they do exist because of the way you divide the entire world in two binary opposite camps and then believe that this is a reflection of some underlying reality. It is not. It is a function of the limits of such an approach.
Secondly
This thread was specifically about challenging a high level macro generic argument about the 'problem' of listening to 'prophets of doom'. A generic issues you constantly bang on about. Long before covid-19 and not doubt long after it too. The point of this thread was to show how in the specific case of this current outbreak, this general theory of yours is flat out misinformed. As shown by the facts we do have. Those countries that were prepared , because they listened to 'prophets of doom' , those countries that acted swiftly and consistently, because they listened to 'prophets of doom' have all fared better than those countries that did not prepare, did not act swiftly and consistently because they did what you claim should always be done - not listen to prophets of doom. Not listening to prophets of doom has led to more early deaths and more economic damage. The evidence on this is already clear and compelling. This will not lead to you revising your view that is always bad to listen to prophets of doom. Yet that does not change the reality that in this case listening to prophets of doom, before the outbreak and once it stared was the better thing to do vs not doing so.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
Generally governments in rapidly moving crisis such as this have to make on the spot decisions, hundreds of them. Some will be right some will be wrong. They act on advice but that is often mixed all we can hope is the get a lot more right than wrong.
This thread is about if it is wise to listen to prophets of doom or not. SK was able to make better decisions , quicker , with better outcomes BECAUSE it had listened to prophets of doom who had been saying since the SARS outbreak and earlier, that we need to be ready for something catastrophic that has not yet happened. If the UK had of listened to such before this crisis, then when it struck it would have been able to make better on the spot decisions , hundreds of then, with better outcomes. I know you want to make out there was nothing the UK government could have done differently, either before of once the outbreak started globally or in the UK. The evidence just does not support such a want. What they could have done before it struck was listen more to the prophets of doom than they did. What they could have once it broke out in China was listen more to the prophets of doom than they did. What they could have once it broke out in UK was listen more to the prophets of doom than they did. What they could have done is the very thing you argue is a 'stupid' thing to do generically and that we know made orders of magnitude differences in outcomes, deaths AND economic damage, in those countries that had and did do the thing that you claim is generically a bad thing to ever do. That is why I started a thread about this.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
I’m sure they would like to take their time and wait on more data before making a more informed decision but then the likes of yourself will castigate them for inaction. Do something now, anything if you are panicked into a wrong decision we can slaughter you then but if you don’t do something immediately we can slaughter you now.
If they choose to do something different as South Korea has done then you will leap on that. Most of the world is locking down but why won’t Britain and/or America do the same? Why do they always think they are right and the rest of the world wrong?
Also you may have nailed your colours to the South Korean mast a bit early, this a long game mate.
Your arguments are entirely straw man ones. I have been suggesting that looking to what SK is doing from as soon as the numbers we do have were clearly indicating they were doing better than other countries in controlling this virus. The 'hard' numbers , like know positive cases. Plotted not against time but plotting new positive in last 7 days vs total positives to date. When I first present such numbers and analysis your response was to start banging on about how inaccurate numbers on deaths assigned to covid-19 were, even though the cart I presented did not use such numbers at all. This site / chart remains the best simplest way to get a grip on how well a country is doing in terms of controlling spread of the virus.
https://bchurchill.github.io/covidtrend ... ed+Kingdom
So I can tell you the exact date I started to say we should be looking to countries like SK to inform our responses. Move the date slider on the bottom of that chart to the 11th March 2020. That is the point at which I started arguing we should be looking to what SK is doing because is the point the hard numbers indicated they were achieving things the UK was not. If you run it till today then you will see a worrying increase in infections in the last fer days on this chart ion SK but it is still orders of magnitude better than the position the UK is at currently. UK is at the 'doubling every 43 days' currently. SK even with its recent slide back is doubling every 270 days.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
Does Boris Johnson/Donald Trump believe that he knows more than the scientists?
I doubt they ever think that but they might think every time we listen to the likes of Neil Ferguson he is always wrong and always exaggerates the dangers by a factor of a 1000. I’m no scientist but I do have powers of observation and this guy is invariably wrong.
But it’s a great life on the sidelines. Hold back and just say money is no object.
Maybe make a suggestion/s that is so obviously unworkable that you will never actually be asked to take on the reins and can remain in the comfortable position on the sidelines as a protest movement.
Again you just project your failings on to me and everyone else. I am NOT playing the 'my expert is better than yours' game. I have not done so once. I have only ever argued against those playing such games and presenting experts that are in contradiction to the simple undeniable numbers like 'total deaths all causes'. Any expert that concludes 'this event is not different in scale than periodic flu outbreaks seen every 5 or 10 years' is in contradiction with the hard fact numbers we already have. That is not 'my expert is better than yours. That is simple undeniable facts are better than any experts guesses that cause them to come up with claims in contradiction to those plain simple facts.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
I would have hoped that this crisis and your sterling work during it might have opened your eyes to the lack of a money tree. You wanted to help as many people as possible but were worried that your funds might be wasted on those who weren’t in need. You realised that you didn’t have enough money to help everyone so had to be targeted. Unfortunately time was a factor but with a limited budget you realised that any mistake was costly. You are now more aware of that but continue down the line of spend all the money on this now and if it doesn’t work invent more money to spend on something anything different but again do it ASAP.
There is no magic money tree there is just how we chose to distribute the pie. This has always been the issue and always will be the issue. Central banks printing new money is not a 'magic money tree' solution. It is merely one mechanism whereby we could easily change how the pie is shared. If you double the money supply by printing new money AND then take that new money to target those most in need, all you are doing is redistributing the pie from those whose need is less to those whose need is more. There are other mechanisms like taxation to achieve the same end but they less effective, more clumsy , more costly. Any argument about 'magic money trees' that is not talking about choices as to how we distribute the pie, are just fundamental misunderstanding driven by dogmatic political entrenchment. You want to talk about how we should share the pie between those with little or no need and those with real need, then fine I will make my arguments. If all you want to do is prove the 'left' proposals are always 'fantasy' because they depend on 'magic money trees', then I have little interest.
One thing my recent efforts have shown me, one thing that I got wrong when it was 'theory' and not practice, was the idea that a 'cynic' would be the best person to try and 'police' potential abuse of such a help system. I have learnt when crashing against the harsh reality of practice vs theory, that such cynics are not really very interested in much other than cynicism. That they are good at point out bleeding obvious problems , like those most able to access help end up getting it at the expense of those who most need it but not so good at getting down and dirty trying to find workable ways to reduce such issues. I have also learnt that no one has greater incentive to try and solve such problems that will always exists than those who are getting down and dirty to try and help.
FWIW the 'project' I have been involved in is constantly evolving. By the day and by the hour. Right now my focus on continuing to get funds in to COSH is much lower down my priority scale than is trying to take what we have learnt and making that available to the widest recpetive audience as possible. If cosh runs out of money nest week but we have helped the local bele's and central government become more efficient and co ordinated in their efforts to mitigate the worse impacts of lock down on those most in need, then this will achieve more than anything COSH could do on it's own. That is were I am focusing most of my 'effort' right now.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
I in my non expert virologist way could see a lockdown was a pretty drastic act and would have consequences. When I pointed out people were more likely to starve because of the lockdown than die of the virus, most jumped on my back.
yes I jumped on your back. I jumped on it because you had no way of knowing that was true. No one had no way of knowing if that was going to be the case or not. It was your certainty born of dogma and regardless of actual facts that were available that I was arguing against. I am still arguing against it. That is NOT an argument that says such measure are definitely right, or that lock down might end up costing more lives shortening of lives from starvation than benefits gained. It might but you can not know that . No one can know that. What we do know so far is in the UK excess deaths from all causes have reached weekly peaks not seen before since at least 50 years and probably 100 years. And not ONE of those excess deaths so far has come from starvation. It is also a fact that we know how to prevent shortening of life from starvation. We do not yet know how to prevent shortening of life from covid-19 other than to try an ensure someone does not get it.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
I am not always right by a long chalk but I will give a clear opinion but when I ask others to do the same I am accused of trying to pin them down so I can say I was right and they were wrong. Not really I just want to know what they are actually saying here. When I ask heads or tails forgive me if I say yes isn’t an answer.
What you do is give clear opinions about what you think AND about what I think. Like for example you think lock down was a bad decision AND you think I think it was a good one. Yet I do NOT think this. I have never said I think this. I have said and argued that I do not know if it will turn out net positive or not and nor does anyone else or can any one else - you included.
My position has been entirely consistent and simple. That you perceive it as other wise is a function of the limited and binary way you see a world that is neither simple nor binary.
Some of my simple clear consistent positions through out include
Numbers like 'how many people have died from all causes' is a fundamentally different kind of number to 'how many people have died of covid-19'. In the same way ' the temperature toady was 38' is a fundamentally different kind of number than 'the temperature this day next year will be 36'. I have consistently argued start with the hard simple unarguable fact numbers we do have and work out from there. Measure everything that is a guess against the numbers that are not guesses. The hardest numbers we have are 'total deaths from all causes'. The next hardest are 'number of confirmed positives'. Pretty much everything else after this, how many deaths are from covid-19 or not, what R is, what fatality rates are, how lethal covid-19 is vs other viruses, how many deaths there have been or will be from lock down, if and when there will be a vaccine, if there even is any immunity from covid-19 after infection and how much and for how long, are all guesses and most of them can not be known yet. SO I have consistently argued do not give this fundamentally different types of numbers the same weight.
I do not know if lock down measures in specific countries will turn out to be net positive or not, in short medium or long term and neither can anyone else know this with certainty right now. Those that claim they KNOW lock down measures were too sever and will turn out to be net negative are imo not people working on data and evidence but just people expressing their dogma, just as people who claim to know definitively the other way are the same. Sure try and guess in specific cases but do so recognising they are just that guesses.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
The majority on this forum were in favour of a lockdown, the more vigorous the better. Lots of posts of someone visiting a neighbour or walking the dog against government orders. Who do I phone, lock them up, they are going to kill us all!
So you know as fact that 'the more vigorous the better' do you ? How do you know this ? I would say it is well within the realms of possiblity that majority recognised such decisions were best guesses of the authorities and were broadly in favour of the lock down and the DEGREE of it but would not have supported more vigorous measures. I do not know if this is the case but I do know you do not know either. That your dogma tells you something must be the case does NOT mean it must be the case.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
I mean does anyone honestly think those little masks we are wearing are going to save you if this thing as as serious as some would have it? The supermarkets thermometers all work properly? As a rule of thumb if you buy two of anything with any kind of moveable parts out here one will work one won’t. Everyone is unpacking their groceries in laboratory conditions? Removing their masks and gloves properly?
Again with your binary world view. Mask either stop infection spreading 100% in which case they are a good measure, or they do not in which case they are a bad measure. Or either everyone uses mask in which case they are a good measure or some do not in which case they are entirely pointless for anyone to use. The world does not work that way, it is just your brain that places such binary limits. If masks stop infection at all to any degree they are potentially an sensible measure. Just as regular hand washing, that will not stop infection spread 100 % is. Same with temperature checks. It does not matter how many devices work accurately or how consistently they are used. If they lead to the detection of even ONE person who is infected and that is not know, they have value and purpose. This is exactly what happened in the case of temperature scans at airports and SK. They could not catch every infected person arriving at the airport but they did catch one such person who was then tested and quarantined and spread was stopped as a result. The UK decided , such measures and ineffective because they will can not catch every case and thus people who were infected walked through UK airports and went on to infect others that could have been stopped if heat cameras had of been used as soon as the outbreak started. Does not matter if you miss 10 people for every one you catch. Catching one in 10 or 100 has point and value.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
But we could all feel virtuous and comply.
Claims of 'virtue signalling' are not argument. They are an excuse to avoid having to make an argument.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
The effects of this are going to be felt for years. Even those who think they are insulated at the moment are going to feel the fall out. Taxes are going to go up. Your pension pot is going down. The interest on your savings isn’t going to be as much, the prices in the shops are going to keep going up. Enjoy your kids and grandkids coming out to visit? Forget this year and be prepared not to see them next year or the year after.
And how many died in TRNC, 4? We can lose that many in a car crash.
Two of them were holiday makers. Let’s be honest generally the tourists who come here are no spring chickens, Bellapais at midday looks like Cocoon. Do tourists never die on holiday here?
In the UK the yearly average of deaths from road fatalities in a week is in the order of 35 a week. The number of deaths from all causes recorded in week 16 and 17 over the expect number without covid for that week is 10-11 thousand. Those are just facts. Not opinions. facts. If covid-19 starts spreading here to the same degree it has in the UK to date, then the number of excess deaths seen as a result will be higher than road fatalities by orders of magnitude. It not be possible or as cheap and easy for a loved one to come and visit you here is a negative thing. As is such a person not being able to do so because they died prematurely. yes such is a false argument in many ways but it is exactly the kind of systematic false argument you use, all whilst treating know fact numbers as if they are somehow 'opinions..
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
Still in a couple of years we will be on the mend and Coronavirus will be a memory. The problem is there will always be a virus and there will always be a Neil Ferguson telling us it could kill 500 million. How can we ignore the next virus? And don’t forget the doomsday prophets got in the media a lot this time as we all went along with it so they have a taste for it. The doomsday scenarios aren’t going to be more measured next time.
Saying more people are definitely going top die from the economic repercussions of lock down measures than from the virus is NOT a 'dooms day prophecy' then ? All I see you saying is MY doomsday prophecies are right and other peoples are wrong and not based on evidence but just based on you are more 'sensible' than any one who disagrees with you. If we do not prepare for the next global pandemic, as countries like SK did BEFORE this one stuck, it would be the stupidest thing possible - that is what you advocate.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
Some will advance the most ludicrous conspiracy theories about governments but won’t entertain the fact that they might be a bit creative with the figures.
Who exactly are these 'some' then. I thought you were an advocate of plainly saying what you mean without ambiguity. Can we have an actual 'name' ? An actual example ? The idea that the 100 TIMES less infections and deaths seen in SK vs UK can be accounted for by the SK government being 'more creative' with its figures than the UK government is just an example of the kind of false logic you systematically use to try and explain numbers that do not fit your pre chosen side.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Sat 16 May 2020 9:00 am
The same people who think the government are underestimating the death toll don’t seem to consider that they might overestimate it to justify burning our economy. Every life is precious and you can’t put a value on a human life etc etc but £2 billion for 4 lives might be on the high side?
Who are these 'same people' ? Any names ? Any example ? Who has ever said we should spend £2 billion for 4 lives ? It is just rhetoric, which is what you use when the numbers do not show what you would like them to show. How much do you think it costs to ensure someone who has lost their job does not have to die of starvation as a result ? Per person per week ? I will throw the number £5 out there though in reality I would say that is on the very high side. 2 Billion would then be enough to ensure that around 7.5 million people would not die of starvation for a year should ppeople be facing such a prospect. A bit more than 4 then !
