Covid rates ....

Covid rates ....

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Hmmmm

Wales is high

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Massive Asian population in most of them

As you all may gather

As an islamaphobe so they say, as I despise Islam

I just think it's my honest opinion so why label me

When will people realise the masses of most Muslim communities don't see themselves as British, thats white, brown and black people) as people assume it's racist to dislike an ideology

People who label really should do there homework first.

Many Muslim people don't respect the laws of the land.

I know we all have "great Muslim" friends

But for me they are in the minority

Anyone who believes in this vile nonsense need there heads read.

Wales is high

If those figures are correct Merthyr is worse than Leicester

I can't see how most places in time won't get a spike in figures.

Until vaccine is available to all, I can't see covid going anywhere anytime soon.

I can't see how most places in time won't get a spike in figures.

Until vaccine is available to all, I can't see covid going anywhere anytime soon.

Spot on, unfortunately

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I was shocked to see how bad it had been in my local area - hopefully rates will continue to subside.

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

indeed mate.. the 1968 hong kong flu was far worse elsewhere killing as many as 8 times worldwide deaths to what covid has... nobody locked down... and in Germany the flu edidemic a few years back killed more than covid is....go figure its made no sense to me...

Pre global instant media, mass death rates were unknown.

Now we have it we are going to see minute by minute tradegy

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

indeed mate.. the 1968 hong kong flu was far worse elsewhere killing as many as 8 times worldwide deaths to what covid has... nobody locked down... and in Germany the flu edidemic a few years back killed more than covid is....go figure its made no sense to me...

Could it be that lockdowns...... Have prevented people from dying from it???
Or could the increase in our medical facilities in the past 50-100 years have helped as well?

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

Sweden's plan failed and they've admitted as much.

Sweden
Pop 10m, Cases 71k, Deaths 5,411

Norway
Pop 5.4m, Cases 9k, Deaths 250

Finland
Pop 5.5m, Cases 7k, Deaths 328

Sweden has 10x as many cases as Finland, 8x as many as Norway and 17x as many deaths as Finland 22x as many deaths as Norway,
All this despite having less than 2x the population of the other 2.

If I'm reading right your argument for no lockdown is that more deaths occurred during pandemics when there were no lockdowns? Pandemics that also happened 100 and 50 years ago when sanitation and healthcare was vastly inferior.

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

indeed mate.. the 1968 hong kong flu was far worse elsewhere killing as many as 8 times worldwide deaths to what covid has... nobody locked down... and in Germany the flu edidemic a few years back killed more than covid is....go figure its made no sense to me...

Could it be that lockdowns...... Have prevented people from dying from it???
Or could the increase in our medical facilities in the past 50-100 years have helped as well?

if there was a treatment or cure yes. but DR after Dr has said for those in ICU you can flip a coin on who would survive and there was very little they could do ..
how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ? truth is the vast majority of cases have been same household /property cases .. covid survives well on surfaces in doors ... doesn't do nearly so well out doors . and if lockdown has saved so many lives and actually works why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ? and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown. not just here its the same pattern in all lockdown countries.. 5 days after lockdown numbers quadruple, 10 days they quadrupled again from lockdown date....and why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ? the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?
could it be an enormous over reaction like those leaked German documents say it was ?

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

indeed mate.. the 1968 hong kong flu was far worse elsewhere killing as many as 8 times worldwide deaths to what covid has... nobody locked down... and in Germany the flu edidemic a few years back killed more than covid is....go figure its made no sense to me...

Could it be that lockdowns...... Have prevented people from dying from it???
Or could the increase in our medical facilities in the past 50-100 years have helped as well?

if there was a treatment or cure yes. but DR after Dr has said for those in ICU you can flip a coin on who would survive and there was very little they could do ..
how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ? truth is the vast majority of cases have been same household /property cases .. covid survives well on surfaces in doors ... doesn't do nearly so well out doors . and if lockdown has saved so many lives and actually works why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ? and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown. not just here its the same pattern in all lockdown countries.. 5 days after lockdown numbers quadruple, 10 days they quadrupled again from lockdown date....and why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ? the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?
could it be an enormous over reaction like those leaked German documents say it was ?

I'll quickly answer your questions then:
'how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ?' If you've been tested and have covid then you isolate for 7 days, the other people in your house isolate for 14. That way you don't spread it to other people outside your house so it doesn't spread.


'why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ?'. You do have to ease some things or the country would bankrupt itself with furlough etc. Whether the government is doing it too quickly is a different matter.

'and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown.'. Contradictory there but your point that we shouldn't lockdown because when we're not in lockdown the numbers increase is just odd in itself.

'why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.c ... k-12010193
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 75706.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 76396.html

'the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... h-52242856 I'm sure these people's families would like to be reminded of the no issues they've faced (and that was done in April so you can add more to that list).

If you think we've overreacted. We've effectively shutdown a lot of the country since mid march and still have 44k deaths.

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

indeed mate.. the 1968 hong kong flu was far worse elsewhere killing as many as 8 times worldwide deaths to what covid has... nobody locked down... and in Germany the flu edidemic a few years back killed more than covid is....go figure its made no sense to me...

Could it be that lockdowns...... Have prevented people from dying from it???
Or could the increase in our medical facilities in the past 50-100 years have helped as well?

if there was a treatment or cure yes. but DR after Dr has said for those in ICU you can flip a coin on who would survive and there was very little they could do ..
how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ? truth is the vast majority of cases have been same household /property cases .. covid survives well on surfaces in doors ... doesn't do nearly so well out doors . and if lockdown has saved so many lives and actually works why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ? and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown. not just here its the same pattern in all lockdown countries.. 5 days after lockdown numbers quadruple, 10 days they quadrupled again from lockdown date....and why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ? the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?
could it be an enormous over reaction like those leaked German documents say it was ?

I'll quickly answer your questions then:
'how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ?' If you've been tested and have covid then you isolate for 7 days, the other people in your house isolate for 14. That way you don't spread it to other people outside your house so it doesn't spread.


'why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ?'. You do have to ease some things or the country would bankrupt itself with furlough etc. Whether the government is doing it too quickly is a different matter.

'and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown.'. Contradictory there but your point that we shouldn't lockdown because when we're not in lockdown the numbers increase is just odd in itself.

'why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.c ... k-12010193
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 75706.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 76396.html

'the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... h-52242856 I'm sure these people's families would like to be reminded of the no issues they've faced (and that was done in April so you can add more to that list).

If you think we've overreacted. We've effectively shutdown a lot of the country since mid march and still have 44k deaths.

im only replying once because you just go find an anomaly and come back shouting eureka... if your happy being locked down { I know some are } that's your business... but the world has never been locked down before and we have had worse viruses than this. according to ? W.H.O for starters, but I have not seen anyone claim differently until you...
contradictory ? why are they continuing to fall as restrictions ease
why did they sky rocket { not just increase } immediately after lockdown in all countries...our deaths on day of lockdown was 65 ,10 days later 652 died...its only dipped below the 65 for 5 days since and had not at all when restrictions started being eased ?
either lockdown decreases it or not....in this case the highest infection rates and deaths were the lockdown period and it was by a multiple of thousands...
and yes 3 articles about factories …. 3 ..THREE.. REALLY..7 million working and THREE factories had to close...stop the world..
nhs workers....how many NHS staff would you expect to ordinarily die of all sorts during the same period ? people do die you know... clue..its not a smaller number than your link....
and yes we have ruined our economy and stacked up 100s of thousands of deaths through all sorts of things from untreated / un diagnosed cancers and cardio vascular illnesses to depression and suicides...for 44k deaths { which is less than 7% of our annual mortality rate not population..it increases deaths by less than 7% } of mostly people old and seriously ill which of course are the exact group that are most likely to die anyway and its quite possible there will be a significant overlap and death rates will drop in coming weeks.... the last bit is taken from NHS England
and the first one...7 days this 14 days that...no mate the country was in lockdown and not for 7 or 14 days..and not just those tested positive for covid.. quarantine / isolation is different to lockdown

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

indeed mate.. the 1968 hong kong flu was far worse elsewhere killing as many as 8 times worldwide deaths to what covid has... nobody locked down... and in Germany the flu edidemic a few years back killed more than covid is....go figure its made no sense to me...

Could it be that lockdowns...... Have prevented people from dying from it???
Or could the increase in our medical facilities in the past 50-100 years have helped as well?

if there was a treatment or cure yes. but DR after Dr has said for those in ICU you can flip a coin on who would survive and there was very little they could do ..
how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ? truth is the vast majority of cases have been same household /property cases .. covid survives well on surfaces in doors ... doesn't do nearly so well out doors . and if lockdown has saved so many lives and actually works why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ? and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown. not just here its the same pattern in all lockdown countries.. 5 days after lockdown numbers quadruple, 10 days they quadrupled again from lockdown date....and why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ? the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?
could it be an enormous over reaction like those leaked German documents say it was ?

I'll quickly answer your questions then:
'how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ?' If you've been tested and have covid then you isolate for 7 days, the other people in your house isolate for 14. That way you don't spread it to other people outside your house so it doesn't spread.


'why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ?'. You do have to ease some things or the country would bankrupt itself with furlough etc. Whether the government is doing it too quickly is a different matter.

'and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown.'. Contradictory there but your point that we shouldn't lockdown because when we're not in lockdown the numbers increase is just odd in itself.

'why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.c ... k-12010193
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 75706.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 76396.html

'the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... h-52242856 I'm sure these people's families would like to be reminded of the no issues they've faced (and that was done in April so you can add more to that list).

If you think we've overreacted. We've effectively shutdown a lot of the country since mid march and still have 44k deaths.

im only replying once because you just go find an anomaly and come back shouting eureka... if your happy being locked down { I know some are } that's your business... but the world has never been locked down before and we have had worse viruses than this. according to ? W.H.O for starters, but I have not seen anyone claim differently until you...
contradictory ? why are they continuing to fall as restrictions ease
why did they sky rocket { not just increase } immediately after lockdown in all countries...our deaths on day of lockdown was 65 ,10 days later 652 died...its only dipped below the 65 for 5 days since and had not at all when restrictions started being eased ?
either lockdown decreases it or not....in this case the highest infection rates and deaths were the lockdown period and it was by a multiple of thousands...
and yes 3 articles about factories …. 3 ..THREE.. REALLY..7 million working and THREE factories had to close...stop the world..
nhs workers....how many NHS staff would you expect to ordinarily die of all sorts during the same period ? people do die you know... clue..its not a smaller number than your link....
and yes we have ruined our economy and stacked up 100s of thousands of deaths through all sorts of things from untreated / un diagnosed cancers and cardio vascular illnesses to depression and suicides...for 44k deaths { which is less than 7% of our annual mortality rate not population..it increases deaths by less than 7% } of mostly people old and seriously ill which of course are the exact group that are most likely to die anyway and its quite possible there will be a significant overlap and death rates will drop in coming weeks.... the last bit is taken from NHS England
and the first one...7 days this 14 days that...no mate the country was in lockdown and not for 7 or 14 days..and not just those tested positive for covid.. quarantine / isolation is different to lockdown

I know you've said you won't reply but I'll just answer the questions asked in case anyone else is reading this.

'but the world has never been locked down before and we have had worse viruses than this. according to ? W.H.O for starters, but I have not seen anyone claim differently until you...'. Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that I've claimed this is the deadliest virus in history? Because I've never said that. Just because this is the first time the world's been in lockdown doesn't mean it's bad.

'our deaths on day of lockdown was 65 ,10 days later 652 died...its only dipped below the 65 for 5 days since and had not at all when restrictions started being eased ?
either lockdown decreases it or not....in this case the highest infection rates and deaths were the lockdown period and it was by a multiple of thousands...'. Lockdown wasn't going to remove the virus completely, it was to prevent the growth. Look up exponential growth. Basically if you had Corona you'd infect 3 people (on average) and then each of them would infect 3 and so on. Lockdown is designed to reduce interactions and so reduce infections.

And for the last bits about factories, those were obviously just some examples and not the only one. The doctors died of Corona, it wasn't just a list of people who had died.

If you want to look at effectiveness. Even with the lack of testing the USA has seen 50,298 coronavirus cases TODAY. (With states who came out of lockdown faster being the worst hit by far). Even though Europe has a population twice as large as the USA there's only 70,000 more deaths in Europe. Oceania and Asia also have under half the deaths of America combined. Wonder which have been locking down?

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

indeed mate.. the 1968 hong kong flu was far worse elsewhere killing as many as 8 times worldwide deaths to what covid has... nobody locked down... and in Germany the flu edidemic a few years back killed more than covid is....go figure its made no sense to me...

Could it be that lockdowns...... Have prevented people from dying from it???
Or could the increase in our medical facilities in the past 50-100 years have helped as well?

if there was a treatment or cure yes. but DR after Dr has said for those in ICU you can flip a coin on who would survive and there was very little they could do ..
how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ? truth is the vast majority of cases have been same household /property cases .. covid survives well on surfaces in doors ... doesn't do nearly so well out doors . and if lockdown has saved so many lives and actually works why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ? and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown. not just here its the same pattern in all lockdown countries.. 5 days after lockdown numbers quadruple, 10 days they quadrupled again from lockdown date....and why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ? the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?
could it be an enormous over reaction like those leaked German documents say it was ?

I'll quickly answer your questions then:
'how does locking someone with covid up in a house with other people prevent ?' If you've been tested and have covid then you isolate for 7 days, the other people in your house isolate for 14. That way you don't spread it to other people outside your house so it doesn't spread.


'why ease it when figures were much higher than when first introduced ?'. You do have to ease some things or the country would bankrupt itself with furlough etc. Whether the government is doing it too quickly is a different matter.

'and why have figures continued downwards after easing off..? come to that why did figures sky rocket after lockdown.'. Contradictory there but your point that we shouldn't lockdown because when we're not in lockdown the numbers increase is just odd in itself.

'why were there no out breaks in supermarkets . distribution depots food processors , factories ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.c ... k-12010193
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 75706.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 76396.html

'the 7 million who worked through seemingly had no issues ?'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... h-52242856 I'm sure these people's families would like to be reminded of the no issues they've faced (and that was done in April so you can add more to that list).

If you think we've overreacted. We've effectively shutdown a lot of the country since mid march and still have 44k deaths.

im only replying once because you just go find an anomaly and come back shouting eureka... if your happy being locked down { I know some are } that's your business... but the world has never been locked down before and we have had worse viruses than this. according to ? W.H.O for starters, but I have not seen anyone claim differently until you...
contradictory ? why are they continuing to fall as restrictions ease
why did they sky rocket { not just increase } immediately after lockdown in all countries...our deaths on day of lockdown was 65 ,10 days later 652 died...its only dipped below the 65 for 5 days since and had not at all when restrictions started being eased ?
either lockdown decreases it or not....in this case the highest infection rates and deaths were the lockdown period and it was by a multiple of thousands...
and yes 3 articles about factories …. 3 ..THREE.. REALLY..7 million working and THREE factories had to close...stop the world..
nhs workers....how many NHS staff would you expect to ordinarily die of all sorts during the same period ? people do die you know... clue..its not a smaller number than your link....
and yes we have ruined our economy and stacked up 100s of thousands of deaths through all sorts of things from untreated / un diagnosed cancers and cardio vascular illnesses to depression and suicides...for 44k deaths { which is less than 7% of our annual mortality rate not population..it increases deaths by less than 7% } of mostly people old and seriously ill which of course are the exact group that are most likely to die anyway and its quite possible there will be a significant overlap and death rates will drop in coming weeks.... the last bit is taken from NHS England
and the first one...7 days this 14 days that...no mate the country was in lockdown and not for 7 or 14 days..and not just those tested positive for covid.. quarantine / isolation is different to lockdown

I know you've said you won't reply but I'll just answer the questions asked in case anyone else is reading this.

'but the world has never been locked down before and we have had worse viruses than this. according to ? W.H.O for starters, but I have not seen anyone claim differently until you...'. Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that I've claimed this is the deadliest virus in history? Because I've never said that. Just because this is the first time the world's been in lockdown doesn't mean it's bad.

'our deaths on day of lockdown was 65 ,10 days later 652 died...its only dipped below the 65 for 5 days since and had not at all when restrictions started being eased ?
either lockdown decreases it or not....in this case the highest infection rates and deaths were the lockdown period and it was by a multiple of thousands...'. Lockdown wasn't going to remove the virus completely, it was to prevent the growth. Look up exponential growth. Basically if you had Corona you'd infect 3 people (on average) and then each of them would infect 3 and so on. Lockdown is designed to reduce interactions and so reduce infections.

And for the last bits about factories, those were obviously just some examples and not the only one. The doctors died of Corona, it wasn't just a list of people who had died.

If you want to look at effectiveness. Even with the lack of testing the USA has seen 50,298 coronavirus cases TODAY. (With states who came out of lockdown faster being the worst hit by far). Even though Europe has a population twice as large as the USA there's only 70,000 more deaths in Europe. Oceania and Asia also have under half the deaths of America combined. Wonder which have been locking down?

I didn't want a running argument Josh , but your reply was decent..
exponential growth, the magical r figure...at no point has anyone said what actual data { ive typed this so many times and had a vague ,if any reply so please do not do that } they use or what time frame... the equation is easily available on line but anyone that's done any sort of algebra knows you can not find the value of x or in this case r without knowing the other components... and without knowing how many cases you have today, last week or yesterday because A.. the initial testing was almost only on people ill who turned up thinking they had covid.. and B to this day there is no idea how many have had this while being asymptomatic { which includes almost all the covid cases in your mentioned factories, and the cruise ship in march } so where exactly did this 3 { you used it but so did the government } come from ? .. secondly how is it now below 1 has the virus got weaker, less infectious { ive not heard or read either } or was the initial figure a huge over guestimate. ?
the nhs workers had tested positive which isn't quite the same thing...{ if you look youll find lots of official figures about covid deaths compared to deaths where covid was present..}
the usa deaths per million population is still quite a bit short of ours, france, Italy , Belgium, Sweden , Italy and spain…{ the 5 European countries which includes ourselves despite some thinking it wasn't with the hardest lockdowns who remain the 5 with the highest death rates . and I think if your prepared to spend quite a few hours you will find very different results from countries that have done the same or very similar things as each other... its mystified better minds than ours how neighbouring countries or countries with similar demographics, countries with similar climates have such differing results mate....but do I think we should have crashed our economy and built up enormous health care problems for years to come for 1 death in every 1500 people { the majority in their later years or even less ,the majority with at least 1 major illness }.
when 1 in a 100 die every year anyway ? I don't... personally statistically im more likely to die this year of 2/3 other things not that I intend to or am I ill just not as young as I was...ive never gone out thinking is today the day I get my heart attack so why covid…. life is for living...

it is what it is but I wouldn't be at all surprised if people start openly admitting they over reacted... millions on converting barns into hospitals...unused respirators billions on furlough..and on and on.

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

Sweden's plan failed and they've admitted as much.

Sweden
Pop 10m, Cases 71k, Deaths 5,411

Norway
Pop 5.4m, Cases 9k, Deaths 250

Finland
Pop 5.5m, Cases 7k, Deaths 328

Sweden has 10x as many cases as Finland, 8x as many as Norway and 17x as many deaths as Finland 22x as many deaths as Norway,
All this despite having less than 2x the population of the other 2.

If I'm reading right your argument for no lockdown is that more deaths occurred during pandemics when there were no lockdowns? Pandemics that also happened 100 and 50 years ago when sanitation and healthcare was vastly inferior.

Yes it looks bad if you compare Sweden with other Scandanavian countries. Apparently, Sweden initially made the same mistake as the UK and parts of rhe USA - by placing Covid patients in care homes. What idiot thought of that one. BUT - if you compare Sweden with the UK, you get a very different picture. I've just looked at the total deaths for both countries on the Worldometer: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries - and I was shocked. 'Lockdown UK' deaths = 44, 000 divided by population 67,886,000, times 100 = 0.065%. This is a higher death rate than 'minimum lockdown Sweden' -deaths 5,400 divided by population 10,100,000 times 100 = 0.053%. Sometimes the stats do not lie and our politicians have some explaining to do. Of course you could argue that it depends how you records deaths. In Scotland, anyone dieing WITH Covid, rather than OF Covid is included in the stats - so if this practice applies to the whole UK the death rate could actually be lower - but then there would be less justification for lockdown. Maybe in Sweden they are recording deaths differently. But even taking that into account, there is not much difference between the two countries in terms of death rate. But balanced against the Covid deaths, you would have to consider the deaths that have occured and will occur because of the lockdown. Some estimate that these deaths will be treble the Covid deaths. Whatever way you look at this, Neil Ferguson - who scared many to death with his false predictions - has got a lot to answer for.

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

Sweden's plan failed and they've admitted as much.

Sweden
Pop 10m, Cases 71k, Deaths 5,411

Norway
Pop 5.4m, Cases 9k, Deaths 250

Finland
Pop 5.5m, Cases 7k, Deaths 328

Sweden has 10x as many cases as Finland, 8x as many as Norway and 17x as many deaths as Finland 22x as many deaths as Norway,
All this despite having less than 2x the population of the other 2.

If I'm reading right your argument for no lockdown is that more deaths occurred during pandemics when there were no lockdowns? Pandemics that also happened 100 and 50 years ago when sanitation and healthcare was vastly inferior.

Yes it looks bad if you compare Sweden with other Scandanavian countries. Apparently, Sweden initially made the same mistake as the UK and parts of rhe USA - by placing Covid patients in care homes. What idiot thought of that one. BUT - if you compare Sweden with the UK, you get a very different picture. I've just looked at the total deaths for both countries on the Worldometer: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries - and I was shocked. 'Lockdown UK' deaths = 44, 000 divided by population 67,886,000, times 100 = 0.065%. This is a higher death rate than 'minimum lockdown Sweden' -deaths 5,400 divided by population 10,100,000 times 100 = 0.053%. Sometimes the stats do not lie and our politicians have some explaining to do. Of course you could argue that it depends how you records deaths. In Scotland, anyone dieing WITH Covid, rather than OF Covid is included in the stats - so if this practice applies to the whole UK the death rate could actually be lower - but then there would be less justification for lockdown. Maybe in Sweden they are recording deaths differently. But even taking that into account, there is not much difference between the two countries in terms of death rate. But balanced against the Covid deaths, you would have to consider the deaths that have occured and will occur because of the lockdown. Some estimate that these deaths will be treble the Covid deaths. Whatever way you look at this, Neil Ferguson - who scared many to death with his false predictions - has got a lot to answer for.

I chose the other Scandinavian countries because they’re the ones with the most similarities. Same climates, similar populations, similar pop density, similar cultures, all in the Schengen area, geographically similar. The one main difference being... 2 went into lockdown and 1 didn’t.
You’re correct the UK has a high amount of deaths despite us going into lockdown but we went into lockdown weeks after the majority of Europe, failed to provide PPE, allowed 15k elderly to die in care homes, scrapped a pandemic cabinet committee, didn’t require any quarantine for flights coming in, police weren’t funded well enough to break up gatherings, multiple govt officials flouting the rules they made, etc. That’s just a few of the f**k ups our government made. There’s figures suggesting that lockdown occurring 2 weeks earlier could’ve halved our deaths.

Look at America. They’ve waltzed out of lockdown and are seeing their highest ever cases per day, yesterday was a record with 51k, a few days earlier they broke the record with 46k, a week before that they broke the record with 43k.

Second spikes are expected but not on the scale of America. Look at places that enforced and maintained lockdowns, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand they’re coping much better than the USA.

Finally if we compare the current number of cases between the USA and Europe we can see how maintaining lockdown has affected the number of cases.
Since you mentioned Sweden, of the ~5000 daily cases happening in Europe ~1000 come from Sweden alone.
So despite having only 0.023% of the population of the European Union, Sweden is contributing over 20% to our number of cases.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I live in the Scottish Borders - last time looked we had only 62 deaths (with Covid not OF Covid). 115,000 people live in the Borders. No idea about the number of cases but not a lot of people are dying here.

that's not a million miles off the UK average which is 64 deaths per 100,000 people...
put into context based on national average between 1,000 and 1,100 people would have died in 2018 and similarly in 2019 in a population of 115,000

I thought death rates were low because we are so rural. It doesn't seem high to me - so I did some checking. Spanish flu killed 200,000 in the UK - no lockdown - young people mostly affected. In 1968 Hong Kong Flu killed 80,000 in the UK - no lockdown. So why are we locking down for 47,000? https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 2080%2C000.

Why didn't we do what Sweden did: protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it to develop herd immunity?

Sweden's plan failed and they've admitted as much.

Sweden
Pop 10m, Cases 71k, Deaths 5,411

Norway
Pop 5.4m, Cases 9k, Deaths 250

Finland
Pop 5.5m, Cases 7k, Deaths 328

Sweden has 10x as many cases as Finland, 8x as many as Norway and 17x as many deaths as Finland 22x as many deaths as Norway,
All this despite having less than 2x the population of the other 2.

If I'm reading right your argument for no lockdown is that more deaths occurred during pandemics when there were no lockdowns? Pandemics that also happened 100 and 50 years ago when sanitation and healthcare was vastly inferior.

Yes it looks bad if you compare Sweden with other Scandanavian countries. Apparently, Sweden initially made the same mistake as the UK and parts of rhe USA - by placing Covid patients in care homes. What idiot thought of that one. BUT - if you compare Sweden with the UK, you get a very different picture. I've just looked at the total deaths for both countries on the Worldometer: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries - and I was shocked. 'Lockdown UK' deaths = 44, 000 divided by population 67,886,000, times 100 = 0.065%. This is a higher death rate than 'minimum lockdown Sweden' -deaths 5,400 divided by population 10,100,000 times 100 = 0.053%. Sometimes the stats do not lie and our politicians have some explaining to do. Of course you could argue that it depends how you records deaths. In Scotland, anyone dieing WITH Covid, rather than OF Covid is included in the stats - so if this practice applies to the whole UK the death rate could actually be lower - but then there would be less justification for lockdown. Maybe in Sweden they are recording deaths differently. But even taking that into account, there is not much difference between the two countries in terms of death rate. But balanced against the Covid deaths, you would have to consider the deaths that have occured and will occur because of the lockdown. Some estimate that these deaths will be treble the Covid deaths. Whatever way you look at this, Neil Ferguson - who scared many to death with his false predictions - has got a lot to answer for.

I chose the other Scandinavian countries because they’re the ones with the most similarities. Same climates, similar populations, similar pop density, similar cultures, all in the Schengen area, geographically similar. The one main difference being... 2 went into lockdown and 1 didn’t.
You’re correct the UK has a high amount of deaths despite us going into lockdown but we went into lockdown weeks after the majority of Europe, failed to provide PPE, allowed 15k elderly to die in care homes, scrapped a pandemic cabinet committee, didn’t require any quarantine for flights coming in, police weren’t funded well enough to break up gatherings, multiple govt officials flouting the rules they made, etc. That’s just a few of the f**k ups our government made. There’s figures suggesting that lockdown occurring 2 weeks earlier could’ve halved our deaths.

Look at America. They’ve waltzed out of lockdown and are seeing their highest ever cases per day, yesterday was a record with 51k, a few days earlier they broke the record with 46k, a week before that they broke the record with 43k.

Second spikes are expected but not on the scale of America. Look at places that enforced and maintained lockdowns, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand they’re coping much better than the USA.

Finally if we compare the current number of cases between the USA and Europe we can see how maintaining lockdown has affected the number of cases.
Since you mentioned Sweden, of the ~5000 daily cases happening in Europe ~1000 come from Sweden alone.
So despite having only 0.023% of the population of the European Union, Sweden is contributing over 20% to our number of cases.

Take your points, it will be easier to judge the situation when this is over. There are so many variables that it is a minefield. I assume by 'cases' you mean those who have tested positive; rather than hospitalizations. If this is what you mean then the number of cases will depend on how many people you have tested and will not tell you how many people have contracted the disease. So if you are comparing one country with another you would have to take account of how many people were tested in the different countries. And that become a bigger minefield for someone wishing to make comparisons. I don't want to go there tbh - I've got better things to do. Since Sweden has had less restrictions, it is understandable that they will have more cases. They want young and fit people to be exposed to the disease, while protecting the old and vulnerable. But deaths provide a more accurate measure of the situation imv; and will provide a better measure of how well countries have coped with the pandemic - and in spite of the many possible variables between Sweden and the UK, I don't think there is enough evidence out there at the moment to justify the draconian lockdown that we have imposed on people here. But when this is over, politics will get in the way of any fair assessment of the way we have handled the situation. Politicians will want to protect their own arses.

I didn't want a running argument Josh , but your reply was decent..
exponential growth, the magical r figure...at no point has anyone said what actual data { ive typed this so many times and had a vague ,if any reply so please do not do that } they use or what time frame... the equation is easily available on line but anyone that's done any sort of algebra knows you can not find the value of x or in this case r without knowing the other components... and without knowing how many cases you have today, last week or yesterday because A.. the initial testing was almost only on people ill who turned up thinking they had covid.. and B to this day there is no idea how many have had this while being asymptomatic { which includes almost all the covid cases in your mentioned factories, and the cruise ship in march } so where exactly did this 3 { you used it but so did the government } come from ? .. secondly how is it now below 1 has the virus got weaker, less infectious { ive not heard or read either } or was the initial figure a huge over guestimate. ?
the nhs workers had tested positive which isn't quite the same thing...{ if you look youll find lots of official figures about covid deaths compared to deaths where covid was present..}
the usa deaths per million population is still quite a bit short of ours, france, Italy , Belgium, Sweden , Italy and spain…{ the 5 European countries which includes ourselves despite some thinking it wasn't with the hardest lockdowns who remain the 5 with the highest death rates . and I think if your prepared to spend quite a few hours you will find very different results from countries that have done the same or very similar things as each other... its mystified better minds than ours how neighbouring countries or countries with similar demographics, countries with similar climates have such differing results mate....but do I think we should have crashed our economy and built up enormous health care problems for years to come for 1 death in every 1500 people { the majority in their later years or even less ,the majority with at least 1 major illness }.
when 1 in a 100 die every year anyway ? I don't... personally statistically im more likely to die this year of 2/3 other things not that I intend to or am I ill just not as young as I was...ive never gone out thinking is today the day I get my heart attack so why covid…. life is for living...

it is what it is but I wouldn't be at all surprised if people start openly admitting they over reacted... millions on converting barns into hospitals...unused respirators billions on furlough..and on and on.

I believe that the r rate is a prediction based on the infection rates of similar viruses and how quickly a virus spreads in towns or cities. Obviously it's only a prediction as we can't test everyone. If the r number is 1+ then you're likely to, on average, give it to more than one person and if it's below one you're less likely to give it to more than one (which is why it's likely to go up when more people start interacting with each other).

Only hindsight will tell us whether the UK was right or wrong to lockdown but at this moment would you rather be in the UK or USA coronawise?

I didn't want a running argument Josh , but your reply was decent..
exponential growth, the magical r figure...at no point has anyone said what actual data { ive typed this so many times and had a vague ,if any reply so please do not do that } they use or what time frame... the equation is easily available on line but anyone that's done any sort of algebra knows you can not find the value of x or in this case r without knowing the other components... and without knowing how many cases you have today, last week or yesterday because A.. the initial testing was almost only on people ill who turned up thinking they had covid.. and B to this day there is no idea how many have had this while being asymptomatic { which includes almost all the covid cases in your mentioned factories, and the cruise ship in march } so where exactly did this 3 { you used it but so did the government } come from ? .. secondly how is it now below 1 has the virus got weaker, less infectious { ive not heard or read either } or was the initial figure a huge over guestimate. ?
the nhs workers had tested positive which isn't quite the same thing...{ if you look youll find lots of official figures about covid deaths compared to deaths where covid was present..}
the usa deaths per million population is still quite a bit short of ours, france, Italy , Belgium, Sweden , Italy and spain…{ the 5 European countries which includes ourselves despite some thinking it wasn't with the hardest lockdowns who remain the 5 with the highest death rates . and I think if your prepared to spend quite a few hours you will find very different results from countries that have done the same or very similar things as each other... its mystified better minds than ours how neighbouring countries or countries with similar demographics, countries with similar climates have such differing results mate....but do I think we should have crashed our economy and built up enormous health care problems for years to come for 1 death in every 1500 people { the majority in their later years or even less ,the majority with at least 1 major illness }.
when 1 in a 100 die every year anyway ? I don't... personally statistically im more likely to die this year of 2/3 other things not that I intend to or am I ill just not as young as I was...ive never gone out thinking is today the day I get my heart attack so why covid…. life is for living...

it is what it is but I wouldn't be at all surprised if people start openly admitting they over reacted... millions on converting barns into hospitals...unused respirators billions on furlough..and on and on.

I believe that the r rate is a prediction based on the infection rates of similar viruses and how quickly a virus spreads in towns or cities. Obviously it's only a prediction as we can't test everyone. If the r number is 1+ then you're likely to, on average, give it to more than one person and if it's below one you're less likely to give it to more than one (which is why it's likely to go up when more people start interacting with each other).

Only hindsight will tell us whether the UK was right or wrong to lockdown but at this moment would you rather be in the UK or USA coronawise?

I did ask...I understand the r rate and all this over 1 stuff fine, its like knowing a nursery rhyme... its fiction..nobody wants to say what numbers they are using for one reason only mate.... and unless someone comes out with its now less infectious or weaker in some way being out by a factor of 4 isn't even worth talking about...
in answer all my adult children have worked right through, as im sure 80% would have , the lockdowns were internet/ media panic driven with very little context....so id have zero issues living anywhere. its far less likely to kill me or make me seriously ill than a few things...
question....what happens if a more deadly virus turns up , Spanish flu type that kills fit young people not just weak elderly people ? do we buy astronaut suits ? hide in the hills ?

People keep quoting "if we had locked down 2 weeks earlier we would have halved the death rate".

But the scientist who is alleged to have said this, admitted the other day (on a tv interview) that SAGE didn't advise the government to do this, as 2 weeks before the lockdown began they had no data to work out what the likely spread and number of cases actually was. In other words there was no reliable data to show what was the correct way to react.

So in reality (and future investigations are likely to show) that at most the government were only 2/3 days late in introducing a lockdown. During that time, they spent it assessing the damage to the economy, and how to react to safeguard the NHS from being over run as it has in several other countries.

Lots of people are speaking with hindsight and criticising but they do not have the true facts to make any valid judgement.

We have an older, sicker, overweight population than many other countries.
We have a larger African and Asian population than many other countries.
England has larger cities of people crammed in together than many other countries.

All these are relevant in assessing what was done wrong, and what was done correctly.

The other day the death rate was lower than the 5 year average for the time of year.
Perhaps sadly those who were ill and unlikely to live longer than 12 months just died earlier. Who knows? But the death rates averaged over a year will give us some idea ( but not available for 12/24 months).

People keep quoting "if we had locked down 2 weeks earlier we would have halved the death rate".

But the scientist who is alleged to have said this, admitted the other day (on a tv interview) that SAGE didn't advise the government to do this, as 2 weeks before the lockdown began they had no data to work out what the likely spread and number of cases actually was. In other words there was no reliable data to show what was the correct way to react.

So in reality (and future investigations are likely to show) that at most the government were only 2/3 days late in introducing a lockdown. During that time, they spent it assessing the damage to the economy, and how to react to safeguard the NHS from being over run as it has in several other countries.

Lots of people are speaking with hindsight and criticising but they do not have the true facts to make any valid judgement.

We have an older, sicker, overweight population than many other countries.
We have a larger African and Asian population than many other countries.
England has larger cities of people crammed in together than many other countries.

All these are relevant in assessing what was done wrong, and what was done correctly.

The other day the death rate was lower than the 5 year average for the time of year.
Perhaps sadly those who were ill and unlikely to live longer than 12 months just died earlier. Who knows? But the death rates averaged over a year will give us some idea ( but not available for 12/24 months).

2 weeks earlier we had only had 3 deaths , Italy locked down 13 days before us but it had taken ten thousand cases and in excess of 600 deaths for them to do so...

London " R " rate going up again .

If you want a detalied scientific analysis of Covid 19, the effectiveness of Lockdown, Sweden, masks and how politics is getting in the way of science, have a look at this. I have been following Tony Heller for nearly two years and he is spot on every time. It will be 20 minutes well spent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqUwpqjG_jM