an immediate fast slump on 5th Nov.
So if the "slump" occurred on the very day lockdown started, lockdown cannot have been responsible for it.
It does seem a bit sensitive, I was surprised by the suddenness of the correction.
In this context, worked means slowed infections. I know what you mean - is mere delay worth it?
Its not merely a delay, its a delay (which in itself costs lives) and a bigger case rate and R after the delay - in other words more infections and deaths as a result of it.
I would say that is what occurred, judging by the data I have seen. R at least went back to what it had been.
Its higher
No, keep looking, since the disease always resumes from where is was unless you do something or reach some place of safety, e.g. Spring. lockdown works to slow the rate of infections, buying time. if you do something with the time, lockdowns may be legitimate. If you do nothing with the bought time, then they look futile and harmful.
Again not true - the modelling and Lancet document shows 28 days after release R is higher, case rate is higher, infections are higher than they would have been previously. So the lockdown delay merely meant *more* people get sick and die as a directly result of it.
David Salisbury to use one jab to spread as much immunity as possible through the vulnerable population.
Reducing a vaccine to 56% efficacy all age groups and significantly lower with older people (who are the reason you need 2 jabs, its harder to immunise) means you may as well pour the vaccine down the drown, it means nobody is protected.
Also whats the point vaccinating any age groups under 65 who arent going to get sick?
Pulling out all the stops, vaccinating a million foggies a week while the lockdown lasts until it is politically impossible, or the warm weather comes hence using the bought time to profit. I broadly think perhaps that calculus that makes sense.
The problem was not worse after lockdown ended. The trend has the exact same slope. The problem looks the same, shifted in time, when vaccine or Spring are nearer.
Again isnt true, all models and past data shows the peak is higher and decline is smaller.
Bigger area under graph == bigger cases == bigger deaths.
Theres no data to suggest lockdown works medium to long term, it kicks the can down the road at the expense of other cause deaths AND creates more cases as a direct result down the line.
In this context, worked means slowed infections. I know what you mean - is mere delay worth it?
Its not merely a delay, its a delay (which in itself costs lives)
Since infections cost lives, delay in infection should delay deaths.
and a bigger case rate and R after the delay
The slope is as far as I can see identical, to the extent it can be measured, hence R is identical immediately after release.
the modelling and Lancet document shows 28 days after release R is higher, case rate is higher,
Oh, one must ignore that, it is 28 days after release; too long. The lockdown is irrelevant by then, things are back to normal, how they would have been without lockdown but temporally shifted.
use one jab to spread as much immunity as possible .
Reducing a vaccine to 56% efficacy
No, by time of 2nd vaccine, efficacy prior to 2nd vaccine is already 91%, not 56%. Thar is David Salisbury's case, he knows more than me. Hence 2nd jab increases immunity by 3%, not worth it, use it on somebody else.
In this context, worked means slowed infections. I know what you mean - is mere delay worth it?
Its not merely a delay, its a delay (which in itself costs lives) and a bigger case rate and R after the delay - in other words more infections and deaths as a result of it.
R will always tend to drift towards natural, i.e 2 or 3. I suggest this is not directly related to release from lockdown. It is related to pick up of risky activities in absence of lockdown. It is too much to conclude lockdown caused a higher R.
The fine city of Leicester is surely a prime example that contrary to the title of this post, that lockdown certainly DOES NOT WORK.
Leicester has been in some form of lockdown almost without break since the day of the first national lockdown, and in constant lockdown since 29th June, almost 6 continuous months, and yet it still remains high on a list of places, with the highest numbers of cases per 100k. Therefore how can you possibly make any claim that lockdowns work, unless you are quantifying this by the increasing numbers of boarded up businesses l see in the city every week.
Further afield despite very strict lockdowns South Korea is now witnessing recalcitrant resurgence of Covid infection cases, so clearly lockdown hasn't worked their either.
Likewise in Australia and New Zealand whilst these countries have agreed limited spread of infection case numbers via lockdowns, these countries are effectively now isolated from the rest of the world, however can this be described as having worked, l fail to see this as a success.
Ultimately the GBD is the only effective balanced way to manage Covid, this is the only way the vulnerable can be protected as best as possible, whilst the rest of society keeps their nation's economy ticking over, and most importantly stops humanity and children's futures being utterly destroyed.
