Reply With QuoteUK death rate = 35/million population, Denmark = 18/million.Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
Can't really compare like for like cases as we don't know Denmark's testing scheme.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
What about the rate though? It should be scalable surely.
UK death rate = 35/million population, Denmark = 18/million.
Can't really compare like for like cases as we don't know Denmark's testing scheme.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Equally, locking down a far smaller nation is a lot "easier".
So you believe that just by comparing populations we can conclude that locking down when the UK had only 8 deaths would have made no difference?
And do you believe people would have obeyed with just 8 deaths? There are many factors at play, it's overly simplistic and naive to say "ooooh we should've locked down at point X".
At this point in time but the gap is widening. The UK had nearly 40 times as many deaths as Denmark today.
I appreciate the demographics are different. My point was really whether a couple of weeks could have made a big difference to the outlook for the UK with the benefit of hindsight.
Well, we were told testing was the answer, Germany had a 25% increase yesterday alone.
There's zero hindsight at this point whatsoever.
I'm sorry I don't understand all of this like you do. The question of timing interventions has been a constant discussion point so wondering whether whether we chose the optimal time to minimise deaths is a reasonable question I think. Just insisting we wouldn't have obeyed isn't really a conclusive answer.
They just mentioned on the briefing about an apparent inclrease in car use indicating people were beginning to move about more in London.
I live very close to a major junction in Cardiff (Less than 100 m) and I have noticed an increase in the last copuple of days and most of it is cars not delivery trucks or stuff like that. It hasn't been that far below normal today.
I wonder when the police are going to start spot checking motorists.
I think a sizeable number wouldn't have, more than now. Some need things to hit close to home to grasp that at times.
Recommendations changed to "you must" was a reasonable way of approaching things because it showed the effects of people ignoring...
That isn't the timeline, there was a period of time where there were no restrictions and the government wouldn't even give advice around contact reducing measures.
For a few weeks their whole schtick was to go on telly looking like a bunch of gimps telling everybody that if they washed their hands everything would be fine. Then they got some scary data and decided to tell everybody their grandparents would die. After they pivoted to some level of suppression and within a few days we had a lockdown.
Everything could have been done sooner and less erratically.
Justifying the course of action taken with this crystal ball shite about riots is just desperate.
The rise in German figures puts them between 4-6 days behind us. If that's truly the case then their testing bought them time lag, nothing else.
OK, if everybody or most obeyed do you think it would have made a difference if we were told to stay at home a couple of weeks earlier?
The whole nature of the virus wasn't known at that point, was it? It's desperate shite to claim everything would be hunky dory if everything was shut down straight away.
I doubt it tbh. I think it would have pushed the problem further down the year, worst case scenario this occurring in Winter.
The majority of people saying it now, were saying it then too. Just because you have suddenly appeared from nowhere doesn't mean everyone else did. There was a long thread on the politics board way before it was brought onto here.
Sorry, must remember not to comment when there are such longstanding, well esteemed posters such as yourself.
People may well have been saying it then - been long time lurker by the way, tend to avoid politics board - doesn't mean it was right then. If anything, people would have been making that request with even less information than is available now.
We knew who it was more dangerous to and we knew that it was contagious. Vulnerable people weren't even told they needed to behave differently to non-vulnerable people until the middle of last month.
Talk about deliberate misinterpretation, i am just telling you that you cant accuse someone of being wise after the fact if they have been consistent throughout so your first method of attack for most of those who disagree with you on here is invalid.
It appears there are literally are no parameters to hold the government to account on coronavirus then? Everything would have always been worse had they done anything differently therefore everything they did will always be perfect. I wish my boss judged my performance at work using this methodology.
My employer, I think like most others, was following govenment advice so we were removed from the crowded London commuter run as soon as instructed. It wasn't down to whether we felt like obeying it or not as the office was shut. It's not just about people wanting a drive out to the countryside etc.
Well, it seems you want to find anything to hold the government to account tbh. Not quite sure why that is but hey ho.
You seem to want your boss to judge your performance on a task during the early / mid stages of the task rather than at the end, which would be a tad silly.
Now, we were told testing was the answer, as per Germany. Latest figures show Germany may be 4-6 days behind us. If that's the case and Germany show similar figures then all it's really bought them is a time lag.
The time to apportion blame is afterwards, with facts and hindsight.
Have you ever had a job? Yes of course projects are monitored, assessed and reported on throughout.
You will be on another account by then.
Monitored, assessed, reported on sure. Determining course of action based on woefully incomplete information? Works for you, I guess.
Ooooh, I'm a multi, eh? Some would think only those with a multi would make that incorrect assumption. Not me, though.
With the benefit of hindsight, the decision to go ahead with the Cheltenham festival looks like lunacy, but, even at the time, I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was questioning it. The Government could have stepped in and ordered it to be abandoned, but I suppose that was back in the "herd mentality" days.
To be fair, I'm really not sure what the difference is between suggesting an earlier lockdown would have been optimal to insisiting that it wouldn't have worked as people wouldn't have obeyed it. Neither view is based on facts or ultimate hindsight.
Posting Permissions
