Coronavirus - the political argument

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Good article, thanks for posting it. So (as thought) the slower response could have had an effect, but too early to say conclusively what that was given the other factors at play.

Agreed.

Meanwhile down in Stroud, the noxious politicisation of the pandemic has resulted in our favourite tax dodger shoving in his twopennyworth from his fortified mansion. Check it out.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Good article, thanks for posting it. So (as thought) the slower response could have had an effect, but too early to say conclusively what that was given the other factors at play.

Not quite that.

I think everyone already knows that the government didn't respond 'slower' than Ireland but rather with a different strategy - ie herd immunity rather than containment.

The experts 'debunking' Doyle, did so by arguing that her premise of comparing published deaths by the respective Irish and UK governments were like comparing apples to oranges because of the number of variables involved in how each country differed from each other - in exactly the same way I had.

What they are also saying is that it is too early to say conclusively the effect of the UK's initial strategy was on its death rate.

I think we can now finally put to bed that the HISTORIAN Doyle tweeted a load of opinionated bollocks based on the flawed assumption that she could directly compare published statistical death rates between the two countries and draw conclusions from them without taking into account all the variables and weightings unique to each country in the way they were calculated (or in simple words she took them out of the context they were set in).

Doctor of Philosophy Elaine Doyle again proving the inherent truth of the old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Wonder what sort of a degree Eamonn Holmes has...

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Good article, thanks for posting it. So (as thought) the slower response could have had an effect, but too early to say conclusively what that was given the other factors at play.

Not quite that.

I think everyone already knows that the government didn't respond 'slower' than Ireland but rather with a different strategy - ie herd immunity rather than containment.

The experts 'debunking' Doyle, did so by arguing that her premise of comparing published deaths by the respective Irish and UK governments were like comparing apples to oranges because of the number of variables involved in how each country differed from each other - in exactly the same way I had.

What they are also saying is that it is too early to say conclusively the effect of the UK's initial strategy was on its death rate.

I think we can now finally put to bed that the HISTORIAN Doyle tweeted a load of opinionated bollocks based on the flawed assumption that she could directly compare published statistical death rates between the two countries and draw conclusions from them without taking into account all the variables and weightings unique to each country in the way they were calculated (or in simple words she took them out of the context they were set in).

Doctor of Philosophy Elaine Doyle again proving the inherent truth of the old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Wonder what sort of a degree Eamonn Holmes has...

Didn't read anywhere that what she posted was complete bollocks, just that other factors will need to be taken into account and it's too early to come to conclusions.

Good point on the distinction on slow response though, 'slower to lockdown' is more accurate. 

It would be interesting to one day see a study into the effects of allowing events like Cheltenham to take place.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Didn't read anywhere that what she posted was complete bollocks, just that other factors will need to be taken into account and it's too early to come to conclusions.

Good point on the distinction on slow response though, 'slower to lockdown' is more accurate. 

It would be interesting to one day see a study into the effects of allowing events like Cheltenham to take place.

People are too nice to say such things in public - I wouldn't myself if I was asked for a quote in a national paper in my professional capacity - I've don't doubt many of them thought it though.

As for Cheltenham - out of respect - I've deliberately not debunked Doyle on this previously.

What Doyle seems to have failed to take into account is that the 4 day festival has a mass Irish involvement - about a third who attend come from Ireland as this study showed based on a 2016 survey of the event.

https://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/cheltenham/media/press-releases/2017/02/irish-fans-spend-22-million-attending-the-festival/

Therefore it follows that number wise to population size the coronavirus should have impacted Ireland as much if not more than the UK.  She seemed to believe the opposite.

As the virus has fatal consequences and out of respect I'll leave it at that.

In relation to Cheltenham, I meant from the perspective of how much (if any) such a large gathering had on spreading of the virus.

Not particularly interested in comparing Ireland and UK on anything to be honest, I think Doyle only did so in order to take an initial view on the negative effect of a slower lockdown.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:In relation to Cheltenham, I meant from the perspective of how much (if any) such a large gathering had on spreading of the virus.

Not particularly interested in comparing Ireland and UK on anything to be honest, I think Doyle only did so in order to take an initial view on the negative effect of a slower lockdown.

Doyle's whole premise on which she builds her conclusion is the comparison of death rates between Ireland and England.

If you really wanted to know what the real experts thought about that then I suggest you view the tweet below and read Michael Baum's withering twitter thread in relates to.

Below is an interesting thread showing difficulty of country by country comparisons. This complexity should have stopped Elaine Doyle from making her simplistic UK / Ireland comparison in the first place. https://t.co/NoIGy40KnF

— Paul Yowell (@pwyowell) April 14, 2020

As for large gatherings/spread of virus I posted a link some days ago about the Italian football match and the perceived spread of the virus directly from it, which you may find of interest -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/coronavirus-italy-champions-league-atlanta-valencia-milan-bergamo-a9426616.html

Very interesting, especially the Michael Baum tweet. Thanks for posting.

Three more weeks of lockdown. I'm not sure I can take it.

Just zip up your slippers and MAN UP!!!!!

Cajunboy wrote:Just zip up your slippers and MAN UP!!!!!

I'm not mentioning my slippers. They're irrelevant. I'll have to come up with a new hobby.

boltonbonce wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:Just zip up your slippers and MAN UP!!!!!

I'm not mentioning my slippers. They're irrelevant. I'll have to come up with a new hobby.

Stop being so mard.

boltonbonce wrote:Three more weeks of lockdown.

In Northern Ireland.

I suspect it will be longer for the rest of the UK.

Sluffy wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:Just zip up your slippers and MAN UP!!!!!

I'm not mentioning my slippers. They're irrelevant. I'll have to come up with a new hobby.

Stop being so mard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52304918

Almost as if 10 years of cuts to social care and the NHS have had a detrimental effect.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52304918

Almost as if 10 years of cuts to social care and the NHS have had a detrimental effect.

Agree in the main, but there again, which country was really prepared to cope with such an outbreak.

Ye very true, but it does seem that we were poorly prepared - this story also poses questions as to the impact of cuts on how prepared we have been for this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/revealed-value-of-uk-pandemic-stockpile-fell-by-40-in-six-years

I certainly think this is going to shape spending for years to come, maybe we'll finally accept that these are the sort of threats we need to be wary of and not a nuclear war. Take the money wasted on Trident and put it into real issues.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ye very true, but it does seem that we were poorly prepared - this story also poses questions as to the impact of cuts on how prepared we have been for this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/revealed-value-of-uk-pandemic-stockpile-fell-by-40-in-six-years

I certainly think this is going to shape spending for years to come, maybe we'll finally accept that these are the sort of threats we need to be wary of and not a nuclear war. Take the money wasted on Trident and put it into real issues.

Not to mention the money wasted on two totally useless aircraft carriers and HS2.

I sometimes wonder if we are putting too much emphasis on the scientists and their musings, and missing other non-scientific requirements. I personally would like us all to wear masks. 
Sooner or later we will all be out on the street, in some form or another. As one of the 'vulnerable' ones, I will probably be one of the last ones to be let loose and I'm going to be vary wary of other people, and i would definitely feel reassured with masks.

The fundamental problem that is overlooked by too many people is that the Tories have consistently underfunded the NHS and we are now living with the consequences.

This article from the BBC sums up the problem. If you can't be bothered to read the whole article this graph makes it clear - even in the unlikely event that Boris delivers on his promised of increased expenditure it will still be below the average. This is what you get when you vote Tory. 




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50290033

If the PM being at deaths door and being rescued by the NHS doesn't make them start to properly fund it then nothing will.
I'm hoping that and the current situation are a wake up call to the Government and they start to realise what an essential service it provides and stop the sneaking privitisation that is still going on.