irie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:02 pm
I think we need to remember that there were two lockdowns, the first in March 2020 and the second in November 2020.
Fair enough, what's your point?
Like I say, it would be interesting. Both times they were emergency reactions to stress on hospitals - how much stress was released by lockdown is arguable (although I'm seeing precious little here). What price would we put on the total failure of the hospital system and the potential knock-on effects of that.?
You might say it's a pointless investigation and easier to work on the obvious solution : more hospitals, more doctors and nurses, more equipment. Oh, and more bodybags.
The lockdowns were primarily a response to the predictions of the Ferguson/Imperial College model.
My point is that both lockdowns should be investigated and possible alternatives assessed for use in any future pandemics.
As for more bodybags. I don't know what your tech background is, but the statistical evidence put forward in graphic form to justify lockdowns actually predicted that "flattening the curve" would result in higher total mortality than not doing so. The Covid hearings as currently strucured will achieve nothing other than creating a few scapegoats.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
irie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:45 pm
As for more bodybags. I don't know what your tech background is, but the statistical evidence put forward in graphic form to justify lockdowns actually predicted that "flattening the curve" would result in higher total mortality than not doing so.
Tech? All-sorts - but, like a lot of us, as an old git I do a lot of risk management these days. What-the-worst-that-can-happen? stuff.
So - if you don't flatten the curve and the outbreak gets too high? Lock the hospital doors? It only works if the system can cope.
irie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:45 pm
The Covid hearings as currently strucured will achieve nothing other than creating a few scapegoats.
Personally I think it's good to hear these stories from the horses mouth - not misremembered snippets from private meetings and televised, organised briefings.
When it comes to scapegoats, there might also be a few who are properly called to account and there will be lots more who will be let off the hook.
irie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:45 pm
As for more bodybags. I don't know what your tech background is, but the statistical evidence put forward in graphic form to justify lockdowns actually predicted that "flattening the curve" would result in higher total mortality than not doing so.
Tech? All-sorts - but, like a lot of us, as an old git I do a lot of risk management these days. What-the-worst-that-can-happen? stuff.
So - if you don't flatten the curve and the outbreak gets too high? Lock the hospital doors? It only works if the system can cope.
The point is that "flattening the curve" resulted in more aggregate deaths than not "flattening the curve". This is what the distribution graphs showed, but few understood.
irie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:45 pm
The Covid hearings as currently strucured will achieve nothing other than creating a few scapegoats.
Personally I think it's good to hear these stories from the horses mouth - not misremembered snippets from private meetings and televised, organised briefings.
When it comes to scapegoats, there might also be a few who are properly called to account and there will be lots more who will be let off the hook.
The point is that identifying scapegoats now will do little or nothing to reduce aggregate deaths in future pandemics.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
irie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:02 pm
I think we need to remember that there were two lockdowns, the first in March 2020 and the second in November 2020.
Fair enough, what's your point?
Like I say, it would be interesting. Both times they were emergency reactions to stress on hospitals - how much stress was released by lockdown is arguable (although I'm seeing precious little here). What price would we put on the total failure of the hospital system and the potential knock-on effects of that.?
You might say it's a pointless investigation and easier to work on the obvious solution : more hospitals, more doctors and nurses, more equipment. Oh, and more bodybags.
The lockdowns were primarily a response to the predictions of the Ferguson/Imperial College model.
My point is that both lockdowns should be investigated and possible alternatives assessed for use in any future pandemics.
As for more bodybags. I don't know what your tech background is, but the statistical evidence put forward in graphic form to justify lockdowns actually predicted that "flattening the curve" would result in higher total mortality than not doing so. The Covid hearings as currently strucured will achieve nothing other than creating a few scapegoats.
The actual number of deaths were (sad to say) irrelevant. The lockdowns weren’t to prevent deaths, they were in place to prevent the health service being absolutely overwhelmed and people dying in hospital car parks with the army deployed and the subsequent breakdown of society. I can only speak for locally, but it was a pretty close run thing even with the lockdowns.
The point is that "flattening the curve" resulted in more aggregate deaths than not "flattening the curve".
But fewer deaths at the same time. Your point is irrelevant if the system cannot cope.
irie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:26 pm
The point is that identifying scapegoats now will do little or nothing to reduce aggregate deaths in future pandemics.
You're guessing. And even if you're right about it, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished.
DefTrap wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:18 pm
Fair enough, what's your point?
Like I say, it would be interesting. Both times they were emergency reactions to stress on hospitals - how much stress was released by lockdown is arguable (although I'm seeing precious little here). What price would we put on the total failure of the hospital system and the potential knock-on effects of that.?
You might say it's a pointless investigation and easier to work on the obvious solution : more hospitals, more doctors and nurses, more equipment. Oh, and more bodybags.
The lockdowns were primarily a response to the predictions of the Ferguson/Imperial College model.
My point is that both lockdowns should be investigated and possible alternatives assessed for use in any future pandemics.
As for more bodybags. I don't know what your tech background is, but the statistical evidence put forward in graphic form to justify lockdowns actually predicted that "flattening the curve" would result in higher total mortality than not doing so. The Covid hearings as currently strucured will achieve nothing other than creating a few scapegoats.
The actual number of deaths were (sad to say) irrelevant. The lockdowns weren’t to prevent deaths, they were in place to prevent the health service being absolutely overwhelmed and people dying in hospital car parks with the army deployed and the subsequent breakdown of society. I can only speak for locally, but it was a pretty close run thing even with the lockdowns.
With empty Nightingale hospitals ...
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
The real way to avoid future pandemics is to build massive excess into our hospital system to cope, and also to close our borders at the first whiff of trouble. That will cost megabucks, and need massive extra taxation. Who will vote for that?
If we aren't prepared to do that, WTF should we make fat lawyers fatter by having a massive public enquiry that will take years and produce a massive report that few will read. And that will bore the pants off everyone until the media find another bone to chew.
Strikes me some people would prefer to put their head in the sand, so as not to hear things they don't want to hear, see people exposed who they would rather not, not have their 'opinion' on a vast range of related topics put into context against facts that some more important people would rather you didn't hear or have actively hidden.
"Lessons learned" is a standard business practice during, and at the end of, major projects particularly a project that is essentially new in type and with a fresh bunch of major players. Projects that have involved the deaths of a couple of hundred thousand people where it's possible more could have been saved given different decisions? - doubly so.
But yeah, ignore it, continue "I reckon"-ing stuff.
What they should at least do now is set out a plan for the next pandemic (based upon the findings from the recent one) and set out the goals. If "saving lives" is at #1 then fecking do it, if it's not (or you want to couch it in "they're going to die anyway" garbage) then at least be honest about it, so we don't have to listen to the likes of Boris defending the indefensible off the cuff, like he's making the decision in the pub.
irie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 7:44 am
With empty Nightingale hospitals ...
Yes, they were empty. Empty of any staff to run them.
I suspect they were just set up as tidy places to die in bulk, where the soon to be deceased wouldn't spread the disease to critical health staff. A reasonably sensible idea that, ultimately, wasn't needed thanks to oooh...lockdowns and vaccines and stuff.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
irie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 7:44 am
With empty Nightingale hospitals ...
Yes, they were empty. Empty of any staff to run them.
I suspect they were just set up as tidy places to die in bulk, where the soon to be deceased wouldn't spread the disease to critical health staff. A reasonably sensible idea that, ultimately, wasn't needed thanks to oooh...lockdowns and vaccines and stuff.
And there were several bulk-buy-sized mortuaries set up too.
For example, two hangers at the disused Upper Heyford airfield. Racking for 600 residents in each.
Yes, they were empty. Empty of any staff to run them.
I suspect they were just set up as tidy places to die in bulk, where the soon to be deceased wouldn't spread the disease to critical health staff. A reasonably sensible idea that, ultimately, wasn't needed thanks to oooh...lockdowns and vaccines and stuff.
And there were several bulk-buy-sized mortuaries set up too.
For example, two hangers at the disused Upper Heyford airfield. Racking for 600 residents in each.
Wish I'd been in the air conditioner market!
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 10:36 am
Do we actually care?
Well it clearly had massive impact, one way or another and completely ignoring any feelings on those impacts. It also involved a lot of big decisions.
I'd consider it pretty for there not to be an inquiry afterwards. As above, in any kind of half-sensible professional outfit you'd run a lessons learned activity after something of that magnitude.
Even if you think the computer models, epidemiology, Chinese mafia or whatever had nothing to do with anything it's still necessary to examine the decision making process that went into deciding...stuff.
irie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 7:44 am
With empty Nightingale hospitals ...
Yes, they were empty. Empty of any staff to run them.
Unsurprisingly, no staff because no patients.
In the same vein, throughout the pandemic private hospitals were paid retainers to keep wards empty for NHS patient overflow. The wards remained empty.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
DefTrap wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 12:02 pm
Strikes me some people would prefer to put their head in the sand, so as not to hear things they don't want to hear,
Agree with you.
Nobody wants to face the truth, witch hunts are far more emotionally acceptable.
Karol Sikora, today wrote: The Covid Inquiry is ignoring the one number that would blow lockdown out of the water
This sham inquiry is achieving nothing apart from protecting reputations and lining lawyers pockets
KAROL SIKORA, 13 December 2023 • 3:12pm
The single most revealing exchange in the Covid Inquiry took place on Monday. Rishi Sunak highlighted a study that suggested more quality adjusted life years (QALYs) would be taken by the first lockdown than the virus itself. This was a significant admission, and one that we might have assumed KC Hugo Keith would want to explore further.
Instead, he shut the Prime Minister down with unerring speed, stating that he was not interested in this approach – inaccurately labelling them as “quality life assurance models”.
It was an astonishing sight. Here we have the most powerful person in the country, rightly raising the possibility that the cure was more harmful than the disease. Sunak, who to his credit was one of the more sceptical of restrictions in cabinet throughout, surely understood the significance of what he was saying. He brought the study to attention very deliberately. The bottom line in the cost-benefit analysis of the lockdown in the UK, published in 2020, was negative in every scenario.
Quality-adjusted life years are exactly how the “success” of lockdown should be measured. This is not a fringe opinion– this measurement has been widely deployed to assess the value of various medical interventions in any resource-limited health system. Difficult decisions need to be taken and trade-offs made. To deny that is to deny reality.
QALYs simply estimate how many years a certain intervention will save or take, including a calculation of the quality of that time. It’s not a perfect metric, but it’s the best we’ve got.
This logic should have been applied to lockdown, however cruel or callous it may appear. On the whole, the lives and wellbeing of the young were sacrificed to protect the elderly, and not even particularly successfully when we consider the misery and suffering millions of older people endured.
It is my estimate that more life-years will be lost from delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment alone than were taken by the virus, and this is just one tiny fraction of lockdown’s collateral damage. Honestly, I cannot understand how anybody in good faith can now argue that restrictions saved more life-years than they saved – it simply does not seem credible.
We are faced with one of two disturbing truths about this so-called “inquiry”. Either its staff genuinely don’t understand the concept of a QALY analysis, in which case they should not hold the position they do. Or, perhaps worse, they are very deliberately steering the investigation’s discourse in order to come to a conclusion that would suit all involved.
I suspect, sadly, it’s the latter. From day one, it has acted as a political witch-hunt with no desire to ask, never mind answer, the fundamental questions. The whole point of this circus is to ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic, if or when one arrives. We are painfully far away from achieving that.
When a point of genuine significance is raised, by the Prime Minister no less, it is ushered away and out of sight. Worse still, Sunak was only referring to the first lockdown. Had that calculation been spread across the almost two years of disproportionate restrictions, the conclusion would be even more overwhelming.
This sham inquiry is achieving nothing apart from protecting reputations and lining lawyers pockets. It is a genuine embarrassment. Sunak’s intervention should be the basis for an entire new inquiry, one which explores a proper cost-benefit analysis of those two dreadful years. I think we all know what conclusion it would come to.
irie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 7:44 am
With empty Nightingale hospitals ...
Yes, they were empty. Empty of any staff to run them.
Unsurprisingly, no staff because no patients.
In the same vein, throughout the pandemic private hospitals were paid retainers to keep wards empty for NHS patient overflow. The wards remained empty.
There was no staff because there were no ICU/vent trained staff. Believe me, if there was a magical place with magical staff to offload vent dependent patients in 2020 then the unit Mrs W was working on would have been over the moon.
Also private hospitals don’t have ICU/full vent facilities.
I do realise debating with you is like debating with a wall though so I’ll stop there.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 10:36 am
Do we actually care?
Well it clearly had massive impact, one way or another and completely ignoring any feelings on those impacts. It also involved a lot of big decisions.
I'd consider it pretty for there not to be an inquiry afterwards. As above, in any kind of half-sensible professional outfit you'd run a lessons learned activity after something of that magnitude.
Even if you think the computer models, epidemiology, Chinese mafia or whatever had nothing to do with anything it's still necessary to examine the decision making process that went into deciding...stuff.
And I agree. I just think the Public Enquiry model is far too cumbersome, slow, and legalistic to get anywhere near the truth.
for there not to be an inquiry afterwards. As above, in any kind of half-sensible professional outfit you'd run a lessons learned activity after something of that magnitude.