[alancalverd]

The context is clear from anyone who cares to refer to it. So is the difference between 0.2 and 2. And anyone who knows anything about COVID (i.e. anyone vaguely literate who has been alive during the last 12 months) knows that, unlike being hit by a bus, there is a significant delay between cause and death, so comparing yesterday's new infections with today's reported deaths, even if you get the arithmetic right, is meaningless.

Anyway I'm sure the world of politics has a use for someone with an idiosyncratic approach to statistics. Just not in an important area like science of public health. Maybe the next Republican administration.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The context is clear from anyone who cares to refer to it. So is the difference between 0.2 and 2. And anyone who knows anything about COVID (i.e. anyone vaguely literate who has been alive during the last 12 months) knows that, unlike being hit by a bus, there is a significant delay between cause and death, so comparing yesterday's new infections with today's reported deaths, even if you get the arithmetic right, is meaningless.

Anyway I'm sure the world of politics has a use for someone with an idiosyncratic approach to statistics. Just not in an important area like science of public health. Maybe the next Republican administration.

3 weeks is the norm Alan for mortality following the cases.

[alancalverd]

Another word from the world of statistics. Do you know what it means? Or why it is irrelevant?

[charles1948]

Another word from the world of statistics. Do you know what it means? Or why it is irrelevant?

I used to work in a Statistical Department.  We made most of our figures up. To  meet what the Head of the Department wanted.to see.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Another word from the world of statistics. Do you know what it means? Or why it is irrelevant?

Anyway Alan, how about my interests!

[alancalverd]

I used to work in a Statistical Department.  We made most of our figures up. To  meet what the Head of the Department wanted.to see.

Sounds like the civil service I knew and loved. We called it "policy-based evidence-making".

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Another word from the world of statistics. Do you know what it means? Or why it is irrelevant?

I used to work in a Statistical Department.  We made most of our figures up. To  meet what the Head of the Department wanted.to see.

Nice punctuation. Do you mean that statistics and wording can largely be used to support any point. Such as cororona kills/saves thousands if you base it of any particular monthly mortality rate. You could use the corona statistics to illustrate that the flu vaccine has extended the lives of millions of people( again don't throw my parents under the bus).

[Bored chemist]

"Why should I be bothered with lockdown?"

Well, you should be bothered with it to protect other humans from unnecessary harm.
But somehow, you don't see that.

You will be telling us next that you vote Tory.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Once again, I can't go for an unnecessary drive in a car, can't play golf, can't go and see someone else in their garden, yet I can go indoors to a church, can send a child to nursery, and can order from the internet businesses with industrial sweatshops. It was the same a month ago, during the last lockdown, which strangely enough failed to dent the spread of corona. It is a complete waste of my time, and is patently unfair. At least this time they have bothered to shut the schools.

I would like to refer to the aspect you mentioned about sending children to nurseries.
I come from Gemany, and nurserys were shut down due to high infection rates. Believe me, closing nurseries should be one of the last options. A lot of parents here in Germany are in a crisis, since a lot of them can`t go to work because they have to babysit their children. And a lot of people who would love to hire a nany can`t afford it. Not every company allows or is suitable for Home Office, which leads to a lot of adults being unable to work to sustain their families.
I am by no means trying to be insulting here, but it just lit a spark in my heart.

But the infection rates came down quite drastically compared to the UK did they not ?

Well I can agree, that the Numbers went down way quicker in comparison to UK.
But I wouldn`t necessarily explain it with the shutting down of nurserys. It is told, that the risks of infections in nurserys is way lower, than in other institutions (at least in Germany even from the national television). Of course, most deffinetly prevents some infections, that is without doubt. But the damage the families take is just too big. For parents AND the children.
The small ones are supposed to be socialising and learning from other people. They absorb so uch information this way. Especially in their life-phase where they develope so quickly.

This is sort of the point I am making in this thread. If they wanted to lower infections and lower hospital admissions they could shut schools and nurseries., if key workers need a helper the government currently employs many child safety registered people in the form of furlough and teaching staff. This would do what the government wishes fast and effectively and schools and nurseries could fully reopen far sooner(Statistically the end of January at the very Latest) instead they are jeopardising the well being of millions of people with a protracted waste of time.

Also they where given the opportunity to manage this problem of over flowing hospitals 8 months ago, yet they wasted the chance and buggered everything up once more.

[charles1948]

I think that we shouldn't have done any "lockdowns".  We should've just let the virus run its course.

We'll have to do that in the end.  All this flim-flammery of lockdowns is just a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable.

We can't beat the virus. It's too microscopic  Face-masks won't block it.. It will get everywhere. And infect everyone.

It's just Nature's way. 

[Bored chemist]

I think that we shouldn't have done any "lockdowns".  We should've just let the virus run its course.

We'll have to do that in the end.  All this flim-flammery of lockdowns is just a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable.

We can't beat the virus. It's too microscopic  Face-masks won't block it.. It will get everywhere. And infect everyone.

It's just Nature's way. 

Are you too dim to realise that we now have a vaccine.
It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be.
If it can slow the virus down then that's enough to help a lot.
Do you remember the talk early in the pandemic of flattening the curve?

That's still what we are doing.

We can't beat the virus. It's too microscopic 

Bollocks.
It's about the same size as smallpox and polio.

It's all very well for you to be a doom merchant; but the rest of us would rather not sacrifice millions just because you don't understand how we can save them.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I think that we shouldn't have done any "lockdowns".  We should've just let the virus run its course.

We'll have to do that in the end.  All this flim-flammery of lockdowns is just a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable.

We can't beat the virus. It's too microscopic  Face-masks won't block it.. It will get everywhere. And infect everyone.

It's just Nature's way. 

The vulnerable could have shielded without the general population, their experience would have at worst been exactly the same, but probably lots better than the one that they and everyone  else have experienced. Anybody anybody over 55 or who needed to  protect themselves could have been put on a pension.

Face masks clearly do not work.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80639.0

[Bored chemist]

The vulnerable could have shielded without the general population,

A fine idea with one slight flaw.
We can not identify the vulnerable.

It could be you.

Face masks clearly do not work.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr619.pdf
The research says that face masks work against viral infection
You say they don't.

I'm going to go with the evidence- and remind you that this is a science site.

[alancalverd]

We should've just let the virus run its course.

Please name the 20% of your friends and family you would like to see seriously ill, the 10% you want to see permanently disabled, and the 5% you want to see dead. And not just those present, but for all succeeding generations.

While you are about it, why not add a dash of ebola? Poliomyelitis for the kids, perhaps? Too bad there's no smallpox left. Bloody quarantine, took all the fun out of transmissible disease.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Seriously, this government using the words save lives,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56200739

in the face of nurseries schools and workplaces remaining open, whilst saying I will kill if I play golf is a paradox

[alancalverd]

Your playing golf will not allow the electorate to go back to work and boost the shareholdings of Tory MPs. Your not playing golf will convince the electorate that "we are all in this together", blood sweat and tears, etc. Plus the only results of people playing golf are chronic back pain (more cost to the NHS) and the occasional death by lightning strike. Why ruin a good walk?

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey]

Ask Nigel Farage this question.

[Bored chemist]

Seriously, this government using the words save lives,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56200739

in the face of nurseries schools and workplaces remaining open, whilst saying I will kill if I play golf is a paradox

There are two issues there.
I think most people agree that we should take action to reduce the spread of the virus and thereby reduce the death toll.
But exactly what the transmission path is meant to be for one guy standing in a field hitting a ball with a stick has yet to be explained.

At the outset of the pandemic the (very very limited) evidence suggested that transmission by objects and surfaces was a major factor and that inhalation of fine aerosols was less so.

That turns out to be the wrong way round, but the government is terrified of changing its advice.
So they are still restricting outdoor low population density events but allowing people into work as long as they stay 2 metres apart.

My feeling is that we accept that some measures should be put in place to reduce transmission; but the measures currently in place don't seem targeted at doing that.

[alancalverd]

Private flying for pleasure is banned. As far as separation from others is concerned, it beats even cricket: the radar umpires keep the participants at least 500 feet apart, and 5 miles from the paying public! But it's expensive and therefore seen as permitting the privileged few to have fun while the hoi polloi suffer.

And cricket itself is subject to an odd prejudice.  My schoolteacher son was allowed to coach tennis but not cricket last summer. Why?

[charles1948]

And cricket itself is subject to an odd prejudice.  My schoolteacher son was allowed to coach tennis but not cricket last summer. Why?

Is it because cricket requires the wicket-keeper to crouch close behind the batsman. In flagrant violation of the 2-metre social-distancing rule?