The second issue is that there is surprisingly little evidence that lockdowns work. Last week, a statistician named William M. Briggs, who is solidly in the anti-lockdown camp, wrote a blog post comparing countries that locked down with countries that didn’t. As of May 12, the U.S. had 237 deaths per million people. Taiwan, a no-lockdown country, had 0.3 deaths per million. (The country has had a total of seven deaths.)
No-lockdown Sweden has had 347 deaths per million; lockdown Belgium, with a similar population, has had 763 deaths per million. Ethiopia, with a population of 109 million, had no lockdown — and a death rate of 0.04 per million.
“Death rates were more than highly variable; they were all over the place,” Briggs wrote of the data he had collected. “If lockdowns worked as advertised, we would not see such enormous variability in the death rates.”
It is so fecking shortsighted to come to this conclusion, I really dont get people are this facking thick.
It was very much a half hearted lockdown. I, like many others, worked throughout with no real distancing from colleagues nor face masks worn. I still went to the shops, again no mask needed.
Funnily enough the only people who isolated from my work were the people with low attendance rates, and they all did it within the first 3 weeks. And it was always a family member with the symptoms, not themselves , so they had to do the 14 days 😂
And then, of course, after working 72 hours a week with the group of people, we couldn't go to the pub together in case we infected each other 😂😂
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 24 seconds ago
It was very much a half hearted lockdown. I, like many others, worked throughout with no real distancing from colleagues nor face masks worn. I still went to the shops, again no mask needed.
Funnily enough the only people who isolated from my work were the people with low attendance rates, and they all did it within the first 3 weeks. And it was always a family member with the symptoms, not themselves , so they had to do the 14 days 😂
And then, of course, after working 72 hours a week with the group of people, we couldn't go to the pub together in case we infected each other 😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much echo that story
Living in a country which locked down extremely hard, which has now eradicated the virus and life is back to normal for us, i can assure you they definitely do work.
The key is having a strict lockdown and the general population buying into it.
Bollix. Apples and pears. Lies and statistics. I could build a transportation device faster than VW could produce a Golf using robots. Mine would be scheite, of course, but that's not the point.
Is it?
Surely it’s common sense that lockdowns would work if people actually abided by them. How can you catch the virus off of someone if you don’t come into contact with them or their germs?
Problem in this country was loads of people either have ignored the rules or half a55ed them.
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 24 minutes ago
Living in a country which locked down extremely hard, which has now eradicated the virus and life is back to normal for us, i can assure you they definitely do work.
The key is having a strict lockdown and the general population buying into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's quite simple. When countries were in lockdown, the number of cases and deaths dropped. Now, across Europe, lockdowns have been relaxed and the number of cases and deaths are increasing. The reason it's less evident in the UK is because they never had it under control to begin with before relaxations and any upward curve will be less obvious. Even with that, cases are on the increase again
Yep. We had “levels”.
Level 4 was the toughest, we were in that for 5 weeks. Only allowed to leave the house for a walk/run locally or to go to the grocery store. Only essential services were working which included the food supply chain for the grocery stores which I’m a part of.
Level 3 we were in for 3 weeks, restaurants now allowed to do pickup/delivery.
Level 2 restaurants and cinemas etc now allowed to open completely but with strict social distancing applied
Level one which we are in now is basically life as normal. We’ve got crowds of 35k at rugby games and expos on etc.
By the time we came out of level 4 we had zero community transmission, lockdowns absolutely work if done right.
Lockdowns would absolutely work if they were strict and with no exceptions. Look how China closed shat down along with several other hardline nations.
All this wishy washy crap though does little long term other than relieve the strain. What we have done in the states is laughable and absolutely pointless.
As Macks comment above points out though, morons will ruin it regardless. Not wearing masks, going to stores regularly, going in a bar. All ridiculous things to do if you actually want this shat to end.
No rules said you had to wear masks and they were impossible to get. Even my work couldn't get PPE and we make pharma products....
"Surely it’s common sense that lockdowns would work if people actually abided by them. How can you catch the virus off of someone if you don’t come into contact with them or their germs?"
Again, it's that simple. It's a disease that requires people to be in contact to pass from person to person. Lockdown would logically tie in with that, even ignoring the stats that are very much showing the importance of lockdown
Lockdown worked in Scotland because most followed the rules
It didn't in England because English are arrogant idiots
I was chatting with a pole who said their lock down was everywhere and began almost immediately. They had a much shorter complete shut down than here (UK) and reopened everything much sooner with good success and stats better than here over all for losses. Their economy is back on track too. No reason why the LD should be a bad thing. Pitty our population wouldn't listen and stay home.
That article reads like someone who is against lockdown looking for studies and comments from other people who oppose lockdown. Hardly the most balanced piece of journalism I've seen.
For a start what wad the r rate of HKF vs the Rona just as lockdown kicked in? If it was half as infectious then deaths would have been far far smaller.
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 8 hours, 2 minutes ago
Yep. We had “levels”.
Level 4 was the toughest, we were in that for 5 weeks. Only allowed to leave the house for a walk/run locally or to go to the grocery store. Only essential services were working which included the food supply chain for the grocery stores which I’m a part of.
Level 3 we were in for 3 weeks, restaurants now allowed to do pickup/delivery.
Level 2 restaurants and cinemas etc now allowed to open completely but with strict social distancing applied
Level one which we are in now is basically life as normal. We’ve got crowds of 35k at rugby games and expos on etc.
By the time we came out of level 4 we had zero community transmission, lockdowns absolutely work if done right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand fair nailed it from a 0 comm trans perspective. It’s been brilliant watching sport in front of sell out crowds wrt the Super Rugby Aotearoa games
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/29/was-the-lockdown-worth-it/amp/
Another good article on it and how there was mever any debate as to whether it was the right decision to take.
You have to weigh up the economic impact though.
Unemployment could be at 20% next year and they are looking to increase taxes to 30%.
No offemce but considering it was the over 60 most at risk they are the ones that should have beem locked down not the country.
I guess ultimately it was about what would be a tolerable or intolerable amount of deaths. At the start it was purely around recognising that we don’t have infinite healthcare resources. The government took a decision that any death from covid 19 that could have been avoided with medical intervention (ventilator for example) was unpalatable. As such action was needed (forced reduction of community interaction) to ensure that would not happen.
In terms of the article you reference it’s a bit of an opinion piece rather than a study on the effectiveness of lockdown.
If I recall there was significant debate around whether we should lock down or not, and indeed when. There were calls for a few weeks before lockdown in the UK was initiated where the PM was resisting.
comment by Timothy (U14278)
posted 5 minutes ago
You have to weigh up the economic impact though.
Unemployment could be at 20% next year and they are looking to increase taxes to 30%.
No offemce but considering it was the over 60 most at risk they are the ones that should have beem locked down not the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So on the unemployment rate where are you reading 20-30%? The highest suggestion I’ve heard is 15% (OECD) and that is only if there is a substantial second wave.
On the lockdown for those in their 60s, I sympathise with what you’re saying but politically that would’ve been impossible. They can’t even get rid of the triple lock on pensions and so choosing just to target a certain part of the population (and key voting demographic) in an arbitrary manner wasn’t an option.
Where are you reading about a 30% income tax rate being considered by this government?
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 minutes ago
Where are you reading about a 30% income tax rate being considered by this government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just says 'tax', not income tax. Could be VAT? Typical Timmy scheite.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 minutes ago
Where are you reading about a 30% income tax rate being considered by this government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just says 'tax', not income tax. Could be VAT? Typical Timmy scheite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re right it does just say tax, bit bleary this morning. I thought VAT in some areas had gone down, not up?
Chancellor has said himself that the country will be paying back the cost through higher taxes.
Sign in if you want to comment
Do lockdowns work?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 31/7/20
The second issue is that there is surprisingly little evidence that lockdowns work. Last week, a statistician named William M. Briggs, who is solidly in the anti-lockdown camp, wrote a blog post comparing countries that locked down with countries that didn’t. As of May 12, the U.S. had 237 deaths per million people. Taiwan, a no-lockdown country, had 0.3 deaths per million. (The country has had a total of seven deaths.)
No-lockdown Sweden has had 347 deaths per million; lockdown Belgium, with a similar population, has had 763 deaths per million. Ethiopia, with a population of 109 million, had no lockdown — and a death rate of 0.04 per million.
“Death rates were more than highly variable; they were all over the place,” Briggs wrote of the data he had collected. “If lockdowns worked as advertised, we would not see such enormous variability in the death rates.”
posted on 31/7/20
It is so fecking shortsighted to come to this conclusion, I really dont get people are this facking thick.
posted on 31/7/20
It was very much a half hearted lockdown. I, like many others, worked throughout with no real distancing from colleagues nor face masks worn. I still went to the shops, again no mask needed.
Funnily enough the only people who isolated from my work were the people with low attendance rates, and they all did it within the first 3 weeks. And it was always a family member with the symptoms, not themselves , so they had to do the 14 days 😂
And then, of course, after working 72 hours a week with the group of people, we couldn't go to the pub together in case we infected each other 😂😂
posted on 31/7/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 24 seconds ago
It was very much a half hearted lockdown. I, like many others, worked throughout with no real distancing from colleagues nor face masks worn. I still went to the shops, again no mask needed.
Funnily enough the only people who isolated from my work were the people with low attendance rates, and they all did it within the first 3 weeks. And it was always a family member with the symptoms, not themselves , so they had to do the 14 days 😂
And then, of course, after working 72 hours a week with the group of people, we couldn't go to the pub together in case we infected each other 😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much echo that story
posted on 31/7/20
Living in a country which locked down extremely hard, which has now eradicated the virus and life is back to normal for us, i can assure you they definitely do work.
The key is having a strict lockdown and the general population buying into it.
posted on 31/7/20
Bollix. Apples and pears. Lies and statistics. I could build a transportation device faster than VW could produce a Golf using robots. Mine would be scheite, of course, but that's not the point.
Is it?
posted on 31/7/20
Surely it’s common sense that lockdowns would work if people actually abided by them. How can you catch the virus off of someone if you don’t come into contact with them or their germs?
Problem in this country was loads of people either have ignored the rules or half a55ed them.
posted on 31/7/20
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 24 minutes ago
Living in a country which locked down extremely hard, which has now eradicated the virus and life is back to normal for us, i can assure you they definitely do work.
The key is having a strict lockdown and the general population buying into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's quite simple. When countries were in lockdown, the number of cases and deaths dropped. Now, across Europe, lockdowns have been relaxed and the number of cases and deaths are increasing. The reason it's less evident in the UK is because they never had it under control to begin with before relaxations and any upward curve will be less obvious. Even with that, cases are on the increase again
posted on 31/7/20
Yep. We had “levels”.
Level 4 was the toughest, we were in that for 5 weeks. Only allowed to leave the house for a walk/run locally or to go to the grocery store. Only essential services were working which included the food supply chain for the grocery stores which I’m a part of.
Level 3 we were in for 3 weeks, restaurants now allowed to do pickup/delivery.
Level 2 restaurants and cinemas etc now allowed to open completely but with strict social distancing applied
Level one which we are in now is basically life as normal. We’ve got crowds of 35k at rugby games and expos on etc.
By the time we came out of level 4 we had zero community transmission, lockdowns absolutely work if done right.
posted on 31/7/20
Lockdowns would absolutely work if they were strict and with no exceptions. Look how China closed shat down along with several other hardline nations.
All this wishy washy crap though does little long term other than relieve the strain. What we have done in the states is laughable and absolutely pointless.
posted on 31/7/20
As Macks comment above points out though, morons will ruin it regardless. Not wearing masks, going to stores regularly, going in a bar. All ridiculous things to do if you actually want this shat to end.
posted on 31/7/20
No rules said you had to wear masks and they were impossible to get. Even my work couldn't get PPE and we make pharma products....
posted on 1/8/20
"Surely it’s common sense that lockdowns would work if people actually abided by them. How can you catch the virus off of someone if you don’t come into contact with them or their germs?"
Again, it's that simple. It's a disease that requires people to be in contact to pass from person to person. Lockdown would logically tie in with that, even ignoring the stats that are very much showing the importance of lockdown
posted on 1/8/20
Lockdown worked in Scotland because most followed the rules
It didn't in England because English are arrogant idiots
posted on 1/8/20
I was chatting with a pole who said their lock down was everywhere and began almost immediately. They had a much shorter complete shut down than here (UK) and reopened everything much sooner with good success and stats better than here over all for losses. Their economy is back on track too. No reason why the LD should be a bad thing. Pitty our population wouldn't listen and stay home.
posted on 1/8/20
That article reads like someone who is against lockdown looking for studies and comments from other people who oppose lockdown. Hardly the most balanced piece of journalism I've seen.
For a start what wad the r rate of HKF vs the Rona just as lockdown kicked in? If it was half as infectious then deaths would have been far far smaller.
posted on 1/8/20
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 8 hours, 2 minutes ago
Yep. We had “levels”.
Level 4 was the toughest, we were in that for 5 weeks. Only allowed to leave the house for a walk/run locally or to go to the grocery store. Only essential services were working which included the food supply chain for the grocery stores which I’m a part of.
Level 3 we were in for 3 weeks, restaurants now allowed to do pickup/delivery.
Level 2 restaurants and cinemas etc now allowed to open completely but with strict social distancing applied
Level one which we are in now is basically life as normal. We’ve got crowds of 35k at rugby games and expos on etc.
By the time we came out of level 4 we had zero community transmission, lockdowns absolutely work if done right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand fair nailed it from a 0 comm trans perspective. It’s been brilliant watching sport in front of sell out crowds wrt the Super Rugby Aotearoa games
posted on 1/8/20
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/29/was-the-lockdown-worth-it/amp/
Another good article on it and how there was mever any debate as to whether it was the right decision to take.
posted on 1/8/20
You have to weigh up the economic impact though.
Unemployment could be at 20% next year and they are looking to increase taxes to 30%.
No offemce but considering it was the over 60 most at risk they are the ones that should have beem locked down not the country.
posted on 1/8/20
I guess ultimately it was about what would be a tolerable or intolerable amount of deaths. At the start it was purely around recognising that we don’t have infinite healthcare resources. The government took a decision that any death from covid 19 that could have been avoided with medical intervention (ventilator for example) was unpalatable. As such action was needed (forced reduction of community interaction) to ensure that would not happen.
In terms of the article you reference it’s a bit of an opinion piece rather than a study on the effectiveness of lockdown.
If I recall there was significant debate around whether we should lock down or not, and indeed when. There were calls for a few weeks before lockdown in the UK was initiated where the PM was resisting.
posted on 1/8/20
comment by Timothy (U14278)
posted 5 minutes ago
You have to weigh up the economic impact though.
Unemployment could be at 20% next year and they are looking to increase taxes to 30%.
No offemce but considering it was the over 60 most at risk they are the ones that should have beem locked down not the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So on the unemployment rate where are you reading 20-30%? The highest suggestion I’ve heard is 15% (OECD) and that is only if there is a substantial second wave.
On the lockdown for those in their 60s, I sympathise with what you’re saying but politically that would’ve been impossible. They can’t even get rid of the triple lock on pensions and so choosing just to target a certain part of the population (and key voting demographic) in an arbitrary manner wasn’t an option.
posted on 1/8/20
Where are you reading about a 30% income tax rate being considered by this government?
posted on 1/8/20
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 minutes ago
Where are you reading about a 30% income tax rate being considered by this government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just says 'tax', not income tax. Could be VAT? Typical Timmy scheite.
posted on 1/8/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 minutes ago
Where are you reading about a 30% income tax rate being considered by this government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He just says 'tax', not income tax. Could be VAT? Typical Timmy scheite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re right it does just say tax, bit bleary this morning. I thought VAT in some areas had gone down, not up?
posted on 1/8/20
Chancellor has said himself that the country will be paying back the cost through higher taxes.
Page 1 of 2