Forum
Please register! If you are registered, please log inagain !
[NB: your old dvd forums / digitalfix login will not work]
Has all this been peered reviewed though, is this why it hasn't had much attention?
I think you misunderstand - these have already been published ...
Peer review - evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication. Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.
someone searching out all the possible worse case scenarios, are they all guaranteed to happen to all people as well?
Again, I think you misunderstand - these are not someone's opinions, but a collection of the latest published research.
but these appear every few months ... I don't see the purpose ?
Sure - new research is published daily, it's just that a few get picked up and make it to the mainstream (often the more outlandish ones! MMR, anyone ?!)
And the purpose is science - evidence increases over time. Much of the research is looking at the effects of the C19 virus and how it attacks the body, with a far bigger over-arching purpose - what did we do wrong during the pandemic, and how can we do better next time!
Indy Sage with one of their stellar recommendations, all respected scientists doesn't mean its right or a good idea.
Hmm ... I'm unsure what this is saying - back in May 2020 we didn't have much to go on, so newly developed models were essential! Is this all part of the efforts by the Telegraph+Oakshott to say the lockdowns were useless? ?
So sorry all the articles on that doom thread have been peer reviewed?
Hmmm ... you're talking as if you have a big GOTCHYA up your sleeve ... come on, don't be shy!
But why do you call a simple list of scientific research into the actual known medical effects of C19 a 'doom' thread?
I obviously did not click many of the links - too many even for me! (Approx 57 cardio plus 33 neuro papers). But my understanding is that papers are peer-reviewed before publication, and are then obviously open to criticisms and (repeat experimentation) afterwards. Happy to hear your insights.
would have had all schools closedYes, iirc there were initial fears that kids could be badly affected (till the science caught up). It sounds reasonable to me that this was being discussed as an option.
You mean this Sweden ?
During 2020, Sweden had ten times higher COVID-19 death rates compared with neighbouring Norway.
But sure - over the next few years, we might well discover that lockdowns were not as effective as we expected. Alternatively, we might also discover that if the UK had locked down early and heavily for 2 months, then lives could have been saved. The main point I suppose is that we didn't know then, and we're currently still analysing the data.
I'm really not sure what your point is - I guess it's that doing very little still worked out OK for Sweden ? (Looks to be very similar to Norway).
From the links you posted >
But, the results don't imply that countries that took no measures did better. Sweden did not do nothing.
What the 'Swedish model' really suggests is that pandemic mitigation measures can be effectively deployed in a respectful, largely non-coercive way. Obviously, being a rich country with a decent welfare net, and having achieving high vaccination rates didn't hurt either.
but >
With 6,700 deaths from COVID-19 (as at Nov 2020), the death rate is many times higher than that of its Nordic neighbours. Nursing home residents account for nearly half the dead.
“It’s a huge scandal and highly unethical” ... “serious shortcomings” in elderly care, COVID-19 patients were given a physical examination by a doctor in only 6% of cases.
My head is spinning now! But whichever way you slice it, Sweden seem to have done well compared to the other countries with more stringent lockdowns.
>
"pandemic mitigation measures can be effectively deployed in a respectful, largely non-coercive way."
Unfortunately, UK didn't get that !
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64848106
Another huge factor - Sweden is twice the size of the UK, with much lower population density
Sweden has a population of 10 million and density of 58 people per square mile.
The UK has a population of 66 million and a density of 701 people per square mile.Sweden was therefore taking a much lower risk of being overwhelmed by the virus than would the UK if it had followed the same policy. Besides, Swedes are culturally and ethnically homogeneous, they tend to conform. We in overcrowded modern Britain, not so much.
Off topic, but this is very cool ? ... an interactive 3D population map!
⚠️ Caution: my poor (gaming) laptop fans were soon blowing like crazy, so best viewed on a decent machine.
https://pudding.cool/2018/10/city_3d/
Why doesn’t Britain regret lockdown? - Interesting, as I would have guessed that the pendulum would have swung further towards regret by now. But also interesting that such an article does not make a single mention of long covid!
Long Covid - overall, positive news, even if the headline is a bit misleading - as the article states:
The best available figures suggest two things:
first, that a significant number of patients do experience significant and potentially burdensome symptoms for several months after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of which resolve in less than a year;
and second, that a very small percentage experience symptoms that last longer.
which is pretty much what we've thought all along, just that the longterm efects might be less than first thought.
However, 2 caveats we've already mentioned on here that I don't think were covered:
1) many people don't realise they do have long covid that is impairing their performance - it only shows up through testing (at least it must be mild), and
2) the cumulative effects of repeated C19 infections (⬆️ infections leads to ⬆️ long-covid).
Interesting ... some left-wing academics have joined the anti-lockdowners ...
Lockdown sceptics claim that the average age of death for Covid-19 was higher than average life expectancy. The implication is that most of those who died were close to death anyway.
Essentially, this is totally wrong. Clearly there is a general life expectancy figure for the average individual at birth, but as you age, life expectancy is a shifting estimate tied to your current age.
eg: at 85yo, your life expectancy isn't that you should already be dead! If you're an 85yo male, your life expectancy is actually 91 (as per the ONS life expectancy calculator).So older Covid fatalities actually died many years before their life expectancy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/23/lockdown-sceptics-history-academics-left-covid
