That isn't what he's arguing. He's saying some countries which locked down properly still ended up having horrible spikes and some countries which found other ways to deal with it other than locking everything down have done very well.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That isn't what he's arguing. He's saying some countries which locked down properly still ended up having horrible spikes and some countries which found other ways to deal with it other than locking everything down have done very well.
Do you mean that the wealthy are getting treatment like Remdesevir that the poor aren't getting or that they're getting treatments the rest of us don't have access to full stop?
How did those spikes occur? Surely not by being in contact with an infected person that is locked down at home?
Which countries locked down properly and had massive spikes?
A better question, which countries locked down and have better stats than Finland & Norway?
Explain also how France or Belgium didn’t lockdown properly and compare to who did. What were the differences?
Why have South Korea continued to outperform almost everyone? Why are Germany performing better than most of Europe?
Which countries do you consider “locked down properly”?
Easy, lockdowns did not look the same in any 2 countries, if the rulebook looked the same then results might be the same. So where are these lockdown spikes and what caused them?
Just a guess but infection rates might give us a clue. Do you think lockdown in the US looked the same as germany?
I have absolutely no idea what you are arguing now.
Wibs nonsense statement was:
Which is bollocks, Norway, Denmark, Finland, South Korea all never had stay at home lockdowns like France, nor did Germany. Yet all have massively lower stats than France.
All have also massively lower stats than Belgium or Portugal.
South Korea has one the best responses in the World, with no lockdown.
So if you bizarrely agree with Wibs statement, tell me which countries “locked down properly”?
I KNOW the French lockdown was much much harder than Germany.
You know this too.
So come on, give me examples to back up Wibs claim that only countries that locked down properly have the lower rates. Which countries are these?
Should be an easy point to prove if it’s factual. I’ll start you off, New Zealand.
I’ll counter that with none lockdown Taiwan.
Now you...
Last edited:
Estonia, Poland and Cyprus have all done better than Norway
The wealthy paid for it off course.
If money isn't the object your chances of surviving covid will increase. Not saying like 100% but you get my point.
And thats probably your whole issue. Take for example social distancing, whats the distance we need ti remain apart?
Wrong, Poland has 54 deaths per million, Norway 49.
So was Poland’s a “proper lockdown”? Why then are they seeing more deaths and cases per million than Norway or South Korea currently?
So Estonia was a “proper lockdown”, they have 48 deaths per million compared to Norway’s 49.
Is this really your response to back up that daft claim?
You have no fecking idea what you are even arguing here, @africanspur tried to help you out but you’re just making no sense, and if a couple of posters can’t make sense of you, it’s likely you that’s the issue.
I’ll help you again, different countries have had different responses, with different levels of success.
The likes of France and Belgium did hard lockdowns which obviously helped, but their rates were high regardless. The likes of South Korea & Taiwan had no lockdown but kept rates low, Germany had a very soft lockdown and outperformed hard lockdown France.
The idea that only hard proper lockdown countries have low stats is bollocks. That’s not debatable here, it’s a pure and simple fact.
Last edited:
Ah I see. Yeah that makes sense to be honest, especially in systems that have private healthcare. You'll be admitted to hospital earlier, probably moved to the ICU earlier and have more chance of getting these treatments if you have the money.
In the UK, everyone who needs Oxygen with Covid gets Dexamethasone and Remdesevir as standard now (or at least in the hospitals linked to us in London, may well be different in other parts of the UK I guess, though I doubt it).
You could pay to go into a private ICU earlier in the UK I guess but not sure that's always the best thing anyway.
Certainly in Egypt, what you're describing does happen though.
Also an element of middle and upper class people having more ability to socially distance. Work from home, get everything delivered, sit outside in their gardens etc etc.
As @Skye1981 has intimated the problem with making comparisons purely on the simplistic notion of who locked down and who did not is that it totally ignores much more relevant factors. For example using Finland and to an extent Norway as comparators against such countries as France and the Netherlands overlooks how small, dispersed and isolated some nations populations are.
infection rates per 100k, again you dont understand that using different models gives different results, stronger enforcement of lockdown rules gives different results. UK encouraging people to go back to the office to save Joe's Caf, Netherlands encouraging people people to work from home to save lives. Do you see it now?? No? Ok then you dont understand and never will.Wrong, Poland has 54 deaths pee million, Norway 49.
So was Poland’s a proper lockdown?
So Estonia was a “proper lockdown”, they have 48 deaths per million compared to Norway’s 49.
Is this really your response to back up that daft claim?
Heres a different model for you, Norway further down the list
Inappropriate Behavior
infection rates per 100k, again you dont understand that using different models gives different results, stronger enforcement of lockdown rules gives different results. UK encouraging people to go back to the office to save Joe's Caf, Netherlands encouraging people people to work from home to save lives. Do you see it now?? No? Ok then you dont understand and never will.
Heres a different model for you, Norway further down the list
What a dogshit post, now post tests per million alongside that ffs.
Norway 126,000 tests per million, Poland 71,000. Estonia 111,000.
Please elaborate, you claim about Norway is just a lie i can prove it with many models out there. Why dont you just stop lieng and show me those stats of spikes during lockdown and how the virus spread in a lockdown sitiuation. Oh yeah, you cant
Those spikes occurred through widespread community transmission before lockdowns were initiated, in many cases as countries were caught cold and didn't think it would affect them.
His point is, again, that early and hard lockdowns worked incredibly well in some places (NZ, some smaller pacific islands), mostly well with a major feckup in others (Australia) and came too late in others (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain). Others have done very well without enacting hard nationwide lockdowns (Vietnam, Taiwan) or moderately well (Japan, SK, Germany).
Almost no countries have done nothing whatsoever and just allowed the virus to run wild, which is the caricature that some have made out of Sweden...though does seem close to the Brazilian strategy. Others have lurched wildly from strategy to strategy (the UK) alongside general incompetence. There is no one size fits all approach to this virus, especially now imo.
I don't think anybody is claiming there are spikes during lockdown? That isn't the argument currently happening at all. Also, what exactly is the graph you posted? Could you post some sources/ axes/ description of what its actually describing etc please?
So is that why the death rates are so low compared to earlier in the pandemic?
Feels like we're consistently above a 1000 cases a day now (and increasing) but the death rates have barely started cracking double figures. Really makes me wonder how many people were actually infected when the deaths were above 1000 per day.
Again i have asked him how those lockdowns were carried out, there are no 2 similar models and therefore results are different. If people ignore the rules of a lockdown then it wont work, unfortunately the guy seems to think all hard, early lockdowns were policed the same and gave different results which, to use his phrase is "Utter Dogshit"
I asked him what the measurement was for social distancing, did not provide an answer because there is no global standard.
Who is talking about spikes during lockdown?
I’m saying this statement from Wibs is clearly false:
“Only countries with hard proper lockdowns have the lowest stats”.
Is that true, or false?
Apologies. That demonstrates the old adage of engaging brain before opening mouth or in this case posting a response.
Better articulated than I managed, thanks for spelling that out pal.
i've mentioned what the graph is for above, infection rates per 100k where Norway are being out performed by several countries, contrary to your guys belief
You’re arguing a point no-one else in this thread is man. And no, I don’t think what you wrote at all, in that all lockdowns were the same, I literally just replied to you saying Germany’s was much lighter than France’s super tough policed lock down.
Thanks for making my point
If Norway have tested 126,000 /million and Poland 71,000.... who is likely to find more asymptomatic & mild cases Stan?
I think there's probably a few factors at play. Certainly the medication is one of them; the evidence for remdesevir is slightly more shaky but we have pretty good evidence now that Dex reduces mortality in Covid if you need Oxygen. We've generally gotten better at managing these patients in the hospital and our procedures for preventing in hospital transmission also better.
I imagine there's also an element of demographics (potentially more young people now?) and also increased and more widespread community testing. At the peak, we weren't testing that much outside of the NHS so most of the cases we were reporting were already unwell enough to come to hospital. May also just be a lag and in 2-3 weeks, we'll be slammed again.
I'll be honest though, I go into work every week, bum clenched, waiting for the number of hospitalisations to start increasing again...so far so good. Let's hope it stays that way.
An the Netherlands was much lighter than the UK. Again, it's how you police and adhere to the rules, do you get that? That one hat CAN suit all? If stay at home was enforced by the military howcould the virus spread outside of the house anywhere in the world?
For comparison: Madrid alone has a larger population than the whole of either Finland, Norway or New Zealand. I agree with you and it absolutely boggles my mind that people make these comparisons with a straight face.
i'd need to see positive % from those tests, for example, here testing has gone right down with positive % right up. I wont hazzard a guess
I don't think he does think that. Just that complete lockdowns to eradication may not be possible in all countries and may actually be irresponsible depending on the country being discussed. And that other countries have managed to control the virus without hard, total lockdown like was seen in Wuhan/ Italy/ Melbourne etc.
Nobody is saying that all lockdowns are the same or people acted the same in different places.
I don't even think I've mentioned Norway. But regardless, Norway isn't perfect but they've done very well so far without a total lockdown. Maybe its luck, timing, competence, dispersed populace or a combo of the above. But some countries have kept on top of things withut total lockdowns.
I've said again and again there is little point making direct comparisons in this way and its usually done by people who want to enter a slightly weird and jingoistic dick measuring contest but there we go.
We’re not, for the third time that’s the point.
I totally agree, but that's just whats happening in the thread. You cannot ask why one country faired better with lighter lockdowns if everybody ignored the rules of stricter lockdowns, it's madness.
I'm so pleased authorities have started closing cafes in town due to rule breaking.
@Stanley Road can we stop boring the entire caf and just return to the original point which is where you piped in. After this discussion I thin you have a better idea.
“Only countries with hard proper lockdowns have the lowest stats”.
Is the statement above true, or false?
My argument was that it’s clearly false, nearly all countries have done differently to differing degress of success. That’s my only point.
“Only countries with hard proper lockdowns have the lowest stats”.
Is the statement above true, or false?
My argument was that it’s clearly false, nearly all countries have done differently to differing degress of success. That’s my only point.
I dont know, please elaborate on what a lockdown entails on a universal scale