Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (4 Viewers)

Forums New posts
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Which is where leadership comes in and having a clear, definable equation that sets the levels based on the scientific data matched to clear restrictions at each tier.

We've got cases per 100k, R rate, positive test %, hospitalisations and percentage of capacity etc - all of which could be used to set an automatic tier level. Doesn't then need govt or local authorities arguing over what should or shouldn't be done. It's all there already.

You could try and add them all into one equation if you wanted although that makes it complicated and puts people off. So instead you could take each criteria and set a tier to a figure for it.
i.e.
R rate
Tier 1 - 1 or below
Tier 2 - 1.1 - 1.4
Tier 3 - 1.5 and above

Cases per 100k
Tier 1 - under 250
Tier 2 - 250-500
Tier 3 - above 500

Hospital capacity
Tier 1 - under a third
Tier 2 - under two-thirds
Tier 3 - above two-thirds

*these are examples - proper figures would be agreed with the relevant scientists and experts to prevent transmission.

Then the tier for each area is set based on the highest tier from all these, so if you're tier 1 on all criteria but tier 3 in another, you're in tier 3.

It's clear, indisputable and sets out what will happen at defined points. Of course people would be annoyed by it but I reckon we're far more likely to be accepting of it if the criteria is plainly set out and what each tier means in terms of restrictions.

It's the constant arbitrary decisions with exemptions for some things and not others not seemingly based on any evidence whatsoever that riles most people. Have the balls to say "these are the criteria for each tier, these are the restrictions that will be imposed for each tier, no exceptions"
Click to expand...

Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
CCFCSteve said:
Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it
Click to expand...
They're sticking the restrictions in the wrong places, in the need to be seen to be doing something.

And in that they'll leave the main places to carry on unfettered.

Utter shambles.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it
Click to expand...

As you say this system would be fine IF it were clear how they're making the decisions. No-one seems to be able to make it out as the cases/100k doesn't match up. Some with higher figures are in lower tiers than other with lower.

It's basically a rehash of the 5 step system we had before that's been forgotten about because no-one could work out the rules or they were just blatantly ignored.

If your going to set up a system like this then you have to say what will happen and at what points and, this is the crucial point, stick to it. If it's unpopular sobeit. That's what leadership is about - making decisions that might be unpopular and enforcing them. Otherwise you're not a leader, you're just someone offering suggestions and you'll have no respect or authority.
 
David O'Day

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
that was fucking awful a clown who doesn't know what is going on, a chancellor who is fucking economically illiterate and CMO who clearly doesn't agree with them
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
djr8369 said:
It’s getting harder to believe they are actually this shit. Is it intentional? I don’t get it.
Click to expand...

The adverse affects of Brexit will be blamed on covid. A ready made scapegoat has fallen into their laps and even if some of it reflects badly on them better to look like you've mishandled an unforeseen pandemic than to have a light shone on the pitfalls of your pet project.
 
Alan Dugdales Moustache

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
The adverse affects of Brexit will be blamed on covid. A ready made scapegoat has fallen into their laps and even if some of it reflects badly on them better to look like you've mishandled an unforeseen pandemic than to have a light shone on the pitfalls of your pet project.
Click to expand...
What do you expect ?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Following the science.

And, as minutes from the government's scientific advisory group, Sage, show, recommendations made to ministers on 21 September included an immediate circuit breaker - or short lockdown - which was seen as the most effective way to suppress the virus.

They also reveal that the scientific advisers believe NHS Test and Trace is having just a "marginal impact" on the epidemic and this "will likely decline further" unless the system grows to keep pace with new cases.
 
T

The Lurker

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Following the science.

And, as minutes from the government's scientific advisory group, Sage, show, recommendations made to ministers on 21 September included an immediate circuit breaker - or short lockdown - which was seen as the most effective way to suppress the virus.

They also reveal that the scientific advisers believe NHS Test and Trace is having just a "marginal impact" on the epidemic and this "will likely decline further" unless the system grows to keep pace with new cases.
Click to expand...

followed the science first time and the country collapsed. would you want a full lockdown?
 
T

The Lurker

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Yup. Was following a herd immunity approach which, as more evidence emerges, looks a dangerous path to tread.

Bring on the anti virals!
Click to expand...
Last 6 weeks of covid deaths, compared to deaths in March/April. please tell me why we should have another lockdown?
 

Attachments

  • 0B9B97CD-4F46-4CAB-ADCA-896957DD0AF6.jpeg
    0B9B97CD-4F46-4CAB-ADCA-896957DD0AF6.jpeg
    47.2 KB · Views: 21
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The Lurker said:
Last 6 weeks of covid deaths, compared to deaths in March/April. please tell me why we should have another lockdown?
Click to expand...

You should be taking an equivalent six weeks? Why have you chosen those six weeks?

You’ve taken six weeks from the middle of the first wave and compared it to six weeks early in the second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top