• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Heading into autumn - what next?

Status
Not open for further replies.

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
All lockdowns do is buy time; if a vaccine is in development then in theory you could have very few deaths if you locked down as soon as the virus was known about, until all vulnerable people were vaccinated. A very harsh lockdown that was well observed would still have resulted in transmission as people would have still had to carry out certain essential tasks and some jobs clearly have to continue during a lockdown. But that would have been over a year; it would have been unaffordable and untenable.

The sort of people who call for lockdowns are either the type who have well proportioned homes, work from home jobs (or are retired etc), gardens, are able to visit the countryside, and are more interested in trying to stop other people doing things than anything else; they will still go out on a regular basis themselves, while urging others to 'stay home' or tend to be far-left authoritarians who are keen to fall into line with their far-left authoritarian comrades and allies.

People who use terms like "full lockdown" are probably indicating that they want other people to be further restricted, with more businesses closed, more debt, more jobs lost etc, but of course they would still have indulged in whatever activities they saw fit themselves.
Any, all or none of which may or may not be true, but demonstrates that you have entirely missed the point of the quoted passage.

Ferguson is known for his prediction of 510,000 deaths in a totally implausible scenario, and ridiculed for his pessimism - yet the suggestion here from a serious statistical commentator is that his estimate for the scenario that did arise was in fact too conservative. That made me sit up sharply when I read it - because it was so counter-intuitive.

I’ve yet to read the book it’s taken from; I’ve no idea of the policy biases of the author and I’m drawing no policy conclusions from it. But it reminded me, not for the first time, of how wrong the general view can be. I wouldn’t for a moment have considered Ferguson over-optimistic in his assessment of what was to happen last year - yet that is what was suggested there.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,135
All lockdowns do is buy time; if a vaccine is in development then in theory you could have very few deaths if you locked down as soon as the virus was known about, until all vulnerable people were vaccinated. A very harsh lockdown that was well observed would still have resulted in transmission as people would have still had to carry out certain essential tasks and some jobs clearly have to continue during a lockdown. But that would have been over a year; it would have been unaffordable and untenable.

The sort of people who call for lockdowns are either the type who have well proportioned homes, work from home jobs (or are retired etc), gardens, are able to visit the countryside, and are more interested in trying to stop other people doing things than anything else; they will still go out on a regular basis themselves, while urging others to 'stay home' or tend to be far-left authoritarians who are keen to fall into line with their far-left authoritarian comrades and allies.

People who use terms like "full lockdown" are probably indicating that they want other people to be further restricted, with more businesses closed, more debt, more jobs lost etc, but of course they would still have indulged in whatever activities they saw fit themselves.
A few months ago I nearly blew a fuse with one of my colleagues when he came out with a comment along the lines of if I had been in charge of the lockdown nobody would have been able to work at all. Right so presumably he doesn't want any food, electricity, gas, water, any of the emergency services etc etc. I just couldn't believe how stupid some people are
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
A few months ago I nearly blew a fuse with one of my colleagues when he came out with a comment along the lines of if I had been in charge of the lockdown nobody would have been able to work at all. Right so presumably he doesn't want any food, electricity, gas, water, any of the emergency services etc etc. I just couldn't believe how stupid some people are
Indeed; the pandemic has made me question the intelligence of many people, sadly.
Any, all or none of which may or may not be true, but demonstrates that you have entirely missed the point of the quoted passage.
No, I haven't. I don't agree with the point; it's based on a fallacy.
Ferguson is known for his prediction of 510,000 deaths in a totally implausible scenario, and ridiculed for his pessimism - yet the suggestion here from a serious statistical commentator is that his estimate for the scenario that did arise was in fact too conservative. That made me sit up sharply when I read it - because it was so counter-intuitive.
As @yorksrob said above, he really doesn't know. He is just guessing. Even now, when we know far more about the virus, he still gets it wrong.
I’ve yet to read the book it’s taken from; I’ve no idea of the policy biases of the author and I’m drawing no policy conclusions from it. But it reminded me, not for the first time, of how wrong the general view can be. I wouldn’t for a moment have considered Ferguson over-optimistic in his assessment of what was to happen last year - yet that is what was suggested there.
He probably thought that a harsh lockdown would be able to eliminate the virus or other nonsense, but he is so discredited it's not really worth thinking about him. He's a failure whose reputation is in absolute tatters. He wasn't even capable of following lockdown rules he advocated.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
In relation to this excerpt:
The 510,000 was what would have happened in the “highly implausible” event that we would have done nothing — not even made voluntary changes

A model that doesn’t even attempt to account for expected voluntary changes in behaviour is not worth having.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Indeed; the pandemic has made me question the intelligence of many people, sadly.

No, I haven't. I don't agree with the point; it's based on a fallacy.

As @yorksrob said above, he really doesn't know. He is just guessing. Even now, when we know far more about the virus, he still gets it wrong.

He probably thought that a harsh lockdown would be able to eliminate the virus or other nonsense, but he is so discredited it's not really worth thinking about him. He's a failure whose reputation is in absolute tatters. He wasn't even capable of following lockdown rules he advocated.
You still don’t get it. This is not specifically a comment on the credibility of a contentious scientist, but on the very different perspective that a comment putting what he said into proper context can provide.

What Ferguson thought then is irrelevant, let alone what he thinks now; the comment is a simple statistical comparison between what was predicted and what happened. And what made me sit up and go “oh boy” was the way that this showed how far off kilter conventional wisdom can be.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
You still don’t get it. This is not specifically a comment on the credibility of a contentious scientist, but on the very different perspective that a comment putting what he said into proper context can provide.

What Ferguson thought then is irrelevant, let alone what he thinks now; the comment is a simple statistical comparison between what was predicted and what happened. And what made me sit up and go “oh boy” was the way that this showed how far off kilter conventional wisdom can be.

Without addressing the questions I raised previously though I don’t see how the number(s) can be viewed as optimistic? They appear to be random numbers or at best semi-educated guesses; I suspect Ferguson knew that at the time to be honest.

One of the things we’ll never know is what would have happened had we done nothing. In practice people would have changed their behaviour so “nothing” isn’t a realistic scenario (that would have required the public to be unaware that the virus was circulating, an interesting concept in itself!). Personally I still don’t think we’d have hit Ferguson’s worst case number, in fact I think we’d have seen similar overall numbers to what we saw in practice. As I’ve said previously, lockdowns can alter the shape of the line but not the total shaded area beneath it. The only game changer was/is the vaccines, without them all we can (and indeed did) do is tinker around the edges.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Without addressing the questions I raised previously though I don’t see how the number(s) can be viewed as optimistic? They appear to be random numbers or at best semi-educated guesses; I suspect Ferguson knew that at the time to be honest.

One of the things we’ll never know is what would have happened had we done nothing. In practice people would have changed their behaviour so “nothing” isn’t a realistic scenario (that would have required the public to be unaware that the virus was circulating, an interesting concept in itself!). Personally I still don’t think we’d have hit Ferguson’s worst case number, in fact I think we’d have seen similar overall numbers to what we saw in practice. As I’ve said previously, lockdowns can alter the shape of the line but not the total shaded area beneath it. The only game changer was/is the vaccines, without them all we can (and indeed did) do is tinker around the edges.
So "full lockdown" begs many questions, as does the time period - for reasons I've already pointed at. Having started reading the book, it is very clear that the count of deaths from Covid in the UK is pretty robust, and goes into some depth explaining why.

I will disagree with you on the value of lockdowns in reducing cases - something that is evidenced by the impact of controls on case levels elsewhere. However, I do also agree that vaccines are the key game changer here - "zero Covid" in a world where Covid is epidemic is unsustainable in the long term, and vaccination the only effective way to provide that immunity in a sustainable way.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
So "full lockdown" begs many questions, as does the time period - for reasons I've already pointed at. Having started reading the book, it is very clear that the count of deaths from Covid in the UK is pretty robust, and goes into some depth explaining why.

I will disagree with you on the value of lockdowns in reducing cases - something that is evidenced by the impact of controls on case levels elsewhere. However, I do also agree that vaccines are the key game changer here - "zero Covid" in a world where Covid is epidemic is unsustainable in the long term, and vaccination the only effective way to provide that immunity in a sustainable way.
Would you care to share the reasons why you think the book demonstrates why the count is robust? Because a count of all deaths with a first positive test within 28 days of death doesn't feel all that robust at all, especially given that there is some disquiet within the medical community about it & there have been challenges from family members of deceased people wanting covid to be removed as a cause of death.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Would you care to share the reasons why you think the book demonstrates why the count is robust? Because a count of all deaths with a first positive test within 28 days of death doesn't feel all that robust at all, especially given that there is some disquiet within the medical community about it & there have been challenges from family members of deceased people wanting covid to be removed as a cause of death.
It does so by explaining the counting methods, their strengths and weaknesses, and working through the numbers. It also shows the corroborations and differences between the counting methods, and how they align.

It specifically also draws a distinction between the 28 day approach and the analysis of death certificates, highlighting how different the two methods are. Twenty eight days is a relatively crude analysis, which allows association of cases but doesn't deal with causation. Death certificates, on the other hand, are required to be prepared to a reasonably high standard. If families are challenging them, it would be interesting to know how many and with what credibility - not to dispute the challenges, but to understand their context and whether they represent a general issue, or are specific to particular instances.

One other interesting observation. It's often been questioned how much a case has shortened life by. This analysis suggests that while Covid has hastened many deaths that were probably reasonably imminent, the average life shortening effect is 10 years or more.
 

seagull

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
619
This analysis suggests that while Covid has hastened many deaths that were probably reasonably imminent, the average life shortening effect is 10 years or more.

So, not as much of a shortening effect as the untreated or undetected cancer as a result of the overreaction to Covid, then.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
It specifically also draws a distinction between the 28 day approach and the analysis of death certificates, highlighting how different the two methods are.
I just can't see how a pre-vaccine metric can be valid in a post-vaccine world, surely the reduction in mortality should mean that we need to change the metric.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
So, not as much of a shortening effect as the untreated or undetected cancer as a result of the overreaction to Covid, then.

I'll be honest here, I haven't made any attempt to get my head around how the figures interact, however when the average age of a covid victim exceeds the average life expectancy, I'm struggling to see how the average life shortening effect can be ten years or more. If anybody would like to tell me what I'm missing I'll take it on the chin!
 

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,135
I'll be honest here, I haven't made any attempt to get my head around how the figures interact, however when the average age of a covid victim exceeds the average life expectancy, I'm struggling to see how the average life shortening effect can be ten years or more. If anybody would like to tell me what I'm missing I'll take it on the chin!
You're not the only one I can't work it out either
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
One other interesting observation. It's often been questioned how much a case has shortened life by. This analysis suggests that while Covid has hastened many deaths that were probably reasonably imminent, the average life shortening effect is 10 years or more.

Any illness can hasten a death if there was a preexisting condition, Covid isn’t unique in this regard, a simple cold could potentially kill someone.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
I'll be honest here, I haven't made any attempt to get my head around how the figures interact, however when the average age of a covid victim exceeds the average life expectancy, I'm struggling to see how the average life shortening effect can be ten years or more. If anybody would like to tell me what I'm missing I'll take it on the chin!
If I understand right, life expectancy at birth is about 80. I also seem to recall reading that, at 80, the average remaining life expectancy is 10 years. That works, because you're taking out of the equation all of those who've died younger, and are just looking at the likely life expectancy of those still alive.

When you consider that 80% of Covid deaths are in the age band 39-93, it's much less surprising that the average life shortening is 10 years.
Any illness can hasten a death if there was a preexisting condition, Covid isn’t unique in this regard, a simple cold could potentially kill someone.
Indeed. Which is why that cold would be registered on the death certificate if the doctor judged that it had been either the direct or underlying cause of death.

But, to turn your question round, I consider the case of an elderly relative. He's 86, frail, and with moderate COPD. He has lived in a care (not nursing) home for about 3 years, but within those constraints has a good life. If he were to catch Covid, his odds would be very poor. But without Covid, there's no particular likelihood of his dying in the near future. If we were talking of any other disease, say the old man's friend of pneumonia, there'd be no question about the disease being the primary cause of death, despite the other pre-existing conditions. Following that logic through, I'd see no reason why attributing a death to Covid should be any more contentious.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
If I understand right, life expectancy at birth is about 80. I also seem to recall reading that, at 80, the average remaining life expectancy is 10 years. That works, because you're taking out of the equation all of those who've died younger, and are just looking at the likely life expectancy of those still alive.

When you consider that 80% of Covid deaths are in the age band 39-93, it's much less surprising that the average life shortening is 10 years.

Thanks, although with the average age of a covid death at 84 I'm still struggling with the maths! It's probably one of those statistics like the "x units of alcohol per week increases your risk of a heart attack by x%" which may be mathematically correct using whichever model but doesn't take into account the real world variables.

Indeed. Which is why that cold would be registered on the death certificate if the doctor judged that it had been either the direct or underlying cause of death.

But, to turn your question round, I consider the case of an elderly relative. He's 86, frail, and with moderate COPD. He has lived in a care (not nursing) home for about 3 years, but within those constraints has a good life. If he were to catch Covid, his odds would be very poor. But without Covid, there's no particular likelihood of his dying in the near future. If we were talking of any other disease, say the old man's friend of pneumonia, there'd be no question about the disease being the primary cause of death, despite the other pre-existing conditions. Following that logic through, I'd see no reason why attributing a death to Covid should be any more contentious.

This is of course anecdotal but I've previously mentioned my friend's father who passed away last year. He was extremely ill and at the point he was admitted to hospital it was clear that he wasn't going to come out. He contracted covid in hospital and died. Perhaps covid did kill him but if it did it shortened his life by a matter of hours. He was nevertheless counted as a covid death, something his family continue to contest.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Thanks, although with the average age of a covid death at 84 I'm still struggling with the maths! It's probably one of those statistics like the "x units of alcohol per week increases your risk of a heart attack by x%" which may be mathematically correct using whichever model but doesn't take into account the real world variables.
I have to puzzle it out each time, but it does work! The key point is that the average 84 year old's life expectancy can't be 81 - by definition! - so the question needs to be framed in terms of how long that person would be expected to have lived. It's all based on averages, so the question will always linger as to whether any particular individual "should" have done better or worse than the average.
This is of course anecdotal but I've previously mentioned my friend's father who passed away last year. He was extremely ill and at the point he was admitted to hospital it was clear that he wasn't going to come out. He contracted covid in hospital and died. Perhaps covid did kill him but if it did it shortened his life by a matter of hours. He was nevertheless counted as a covid death, something his family continue to contest.
While I would probably not agree with them on this, I absolutely also accept their frustration that the emphasis on this one disease means that his underlying condition doesn't get the focus it deserves.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Ferguson published a paper demanding cycling lockdowns forever and then decided that lockdown rules didn't apply to him - only to the worthless peasants.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Just answering some earlier questions about my reference to Ferguson being optimistic, his team’s modelling of 510,000 deaths without intervention and a maximum of 48,000 with was over 2 years:
With case isolation, home quarantine, social distancing and school and university closure, the highest projection for deaths in Great Britain was projected to be 48,000 over two years,
 

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,135
Ferguson published a paper demanding cycling lockdowns forever and then decided that lockdown rules didn't apply to him - only to the worthless peasants.
He isn't the only one who felt lockdown rules didn't apply to him, yes Cummings and Hancock I'm looking at you, amongst others.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
While I would probably not agree with them on this, I absolutely also accept their frustration that the emphasis on this one disease means that his underlying condition doesn't get the focus it deserves.

There’s a slight “angle” to this as his underlying health condition resulted from an appalling (and very basic) act of medical negligence and his condition deteriorated as a result of not being able to receive the treatment he required “because covid”. The whole episode was quite shocking really. That said, the family aren’t accusing anybody of conspiracy, they simply feel that he shouldn’t be counted as a covid death just because it was the quick and easy option.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
There’s a slight “angle” to this as his underlying health condition resulted from an appalling (and very basic) act of medical negligence and his condition deteriorated as a result of not being able to receive the treatment he required “because covid”. The whole episode was quite shocking really. That said, the family aren’t accusing anybody of conspiracy, they simply feel that he shouldn’t be counted as a covid death just because it was the quick and easy option.
Noted and appreciated.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,970
Location
Taunton or Kent
Right, despite all major restrictions being gone, including mass gatherings, Khan's decided there'll be no major fireworks display for New Year in London again:


london's famous riverside New Year's Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year because of "uncertainties caused by Covid".
England was under strict lockdown last year, but despite all restrictions having been lifted, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has again called the event off.
Normally about 100,000 people pack the streets around Victoria Embankment.
There will still be a celebration in Trafalgar Square, with details to be announced "in due course".

The beginning of 2021 was rung in by millions of viewers watching a light show on television.
Explaining why this year's event was also being cancelled, a spokesperson for the mayor said: "Due to the uncertainty caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, our world-famous New Year's Eve display will not be held on the banks of the Thames this year.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Right, despite all major restrictions being gone, including mass gatherings, Khan's decided there'll be no major fireworks display for New Year in London again:


To be honest, I’m not sure there’s that much to celebrate. We all said thank goodness 2020 was coming to an end, yet (despite the vaccines) most people I know say they’ve found 2021 very much worse - even the weather has been depressing and at times dire. I’m increasingly getting the feeling 2022 is going to be equally rotten, but for different reasons - picking up the pieces, suffering the effects, and realising what we’ve lost, or in many cases thrown away.

On that basis perhaps fireworks aren’t such a great idea after all!
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Right, despite all major restrictions being gone, including mass gatherings, Khan's decided there'll be no major fireworks display for New Year in London again:


To be honest, I’m not sure there’s that much to celebrate. We all said thank goodness 2020 was coming to an end, yet (despite the vaccines) most people I know say they’ve found 2021 very much worse - even the weather has been depressing and at times dire. I’m increasingly getting the feeling 2022 is going to be equally rotten, but for different reasons - picking up the pieces, suffering the effects, and realising what we’ve lost, or in many cases thrown away.

On that basis perhaps fireworks aren’t such a great idea after all!

If it went ahead, Khan would just instead get criticised for spending money that could be put to better uses etc etc, so he can't really win.

I never see the appeal of the fireworks anyway - standing around in the freezing cold for hours on end for a 10 minute show (that half the crowd watches through their phone screens anyway)
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
If it went ahead, Khan would just instead get criticised for spending money that could be put to better uses etc etc, so he can't really win.

I never see the appeal of the fireworks anyway - standing around in the freezing cold for hours on end for a 10 minute show (that half the crowd watches through their phone screens anyway)
By that logic he would have cancelled it years ago or make it a permanent cancellation.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
To be honest, I’m not sure there’s that much to celebrate. We all said thank goodness 2020 was coming to an end, yet (despite the vaccines) most people I know say they’ve found 2021 very much worse - even the weather has been depressing and at times dire. I’m increasingly getting the feeling 2022 is going to be equally rotten, but for different reasons - picking up the pieces, suffering the effects, and realising what we’ve lost, or in many cases thrown away.

On that basis perhaps fireworks aren’t such a great idea after all!

I generally try not to be pessimistic but I’m inclined to agree with you. For me personally 2021 hasn’t been too bad, but as a country I don’t think we’re in a good place. The government (like many others) seem to love their “Build Back Better” slogan, I get the feeling though we’re still at the demolition stage… 2022 could be interesting to say the least.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Right, despite all major restrictions being gone, including mass gatherings, Khan's decided there'll be no major fireworks display for New Year in London again:


Pretty much the last thing I feel like doing is defending Sadiq Khan, but in this case I suspect he has little choice because of the threat of vaccine passports for any 'event' for more than 10,000 people under 'plan B'.

The equivalent story in the Mirror contains this interesting bit of information

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-new-years-eve-fireworks-25194096
An application has been put in to Westminster City Council for live music, recorded music, alcohol sales and dance events to make up for the lack of fireworks.

Trafalgar Square has capacity for nearly 20,000 people but documents state the event will be limited to 9,999.

I think the reason for '9,999' there should be pretty obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top