Article By Dr John Lee

[Captain23]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ten-reasons-to-end-the-lockdown-now

[teacake44]

No, not the ones in covid wards, I'm on about A&E, way different department.

[teacake44]

They showed a nurse cleaning the chairs in A&E on TV the other night, with nothing else to do.

[Spicerack]

They've closed loads of Depts, cancelled ops and treatments. Very few drunks turning up.
The Californian Doctor I posted 2 weeks ago reckoned they'd laid off thousands of Doctors and Nurses in California.

[sanmac]

I think that I would say that fewer people are going to A and E for "insignificant" reasons, but I don't think that the people who staff that department are "out of work".

[teacake44]

OK, but if no one is coming into A&E, lets say they've got very little to do. Will that do? or their not out of work because their still getting paid.

[Spicerack]

Your speling is atrocious, teacake.

[naomi24]

Well, coronavirus has brought some benefits. No one is having accidents or strokes or heart attacks or any other kind of medical emergency. A&E is redundant.

[Gromit]

// // the headline death rate due to this virus is likely to be ten to 20 times lower, say 0.25 per cent to 0.5 per cent. That puts the Covid-19 mortality rate in the range associated with infections like flu. //

Who wrote that nonsense?
It was none other than Dr John Lee writing in the Spectator in March. Enough to make me wary of his other pronouncements.

[roopower]

If may be a good article, with many valid points, but I'm not sure I agree we can trust people. I know neighbours who have carried on as if nothing is happening with family gatherings, outings and the like. A couple who live locally don't believe Covid exists and keep sending their children round to play with a neighbours children.

[jim360]

Yes, thanks for reminding me about Dr Lee's earlier effort. I was particularly struck by his 30 March point that "We have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world."

Well, now we have, and it's pretty compelling. In the UK the mortality rate rose by 120% for two weeks in a row at least. In New York city they've seen an increase in deaths of as much as 386% on the background, and then that is data that only covers up to April 11th. If Dr Lee is so keen on advocating the idea that science moves, I wonder what he thinks of his position at the end of March. I suspect that he might want to revise it at least a little. And if nothing else, it suggests that as one statistical measure after another continues to show that Covid-19 is serious and deadly, some scientists will just move on to the next one in order to argue that it isn't so bad.

It's important to be wary of dogma. I've continued to argue for some time that the threat from Covid-19 is serious and that drastic measures need to be taken, and yes, there is a very strong chance that I've become so wedded to that view that I'll assess everything from that position. But so will Dr Lee, and so will those who agree with him, be vulnerable to the same dogma. It's not enough to question other people's position.

[naomi24]

^When the government’s advisor - the scientist who got us into this lockdown situation - has a proven track record of huge error it’s not unreasonable to review the situation with a modicum of much needed perspective - something I feel has been sadly lacking throughout.

[jim360]

Just to be clear, though, Prof Ferguson was not "the one who got us into this lockdown". His team may have written a critical paper in the story, but the advice came from scientists across the country and the world.

As to the proven track record of error, that too has been sadly exaggerated. It's true that some of his early predictions have turned out to be wrong, but then the world can often make mockeries of our attempts to measure it. The question is whether his predictions were wrong with foresight, not hindsight.

As to perspective: I still don't entirely understand how you are measuring this. Far more people in the UK and elsewhere are dying that can be expected. That speaks to a serious disease that requires a serious response in order to at least try and control it. As far as I can see, that is the sensible perspective.

[Zacs-Master]

What ‘perspective’ would that be, Naomi?

[jim360]

Allow me to ask it this way: How serious a threat would a disease have to be, in your estimation, in order to justify the government's response? In terms of, say, the case fatality rate?

[naomi24]

//Far more people in the UK and elsewhere are dying that can be expected.//

Not according to Professor Ferguson. He expected many, many more. He was wrong…. again. Excuses don't wash.

As for perspective, I would like to know how deaths are being counted? Are all these people dying of Coronavirus - or with it? That’s a question that although entirely relevant, remains unanswered.

[naomi24]

//How serious a threat would a disease have to be, in your estimation, in order to justify the government's response? In terms of, say, the case fatality rate? //

First and foremost I would want to know how fatalities are counted - and the number of survivors.

[fiction-factory]

Naomi. You may have misunderstood. Ferguson's forecasts were what might happen without lockdown and other measures if the spread were left unchecked. We'll never know whether he was wrong thankfully

[jim360]

I was referring to the comparison of background death rate, Naomi, not Ferguson's model.

As to your next question: we may never know for sure, but if the death rate more than doubles then something new is causing that, and it's pretty obvious that Covid-19 is heavily contributing to this spike. It is a pattern seen across the world, in places that have reported high rates of Covid-19.

[jim360]

I should also add that, in all likelihood, we may only really know the answer to the question about how many people genuinely were dying of Covid-19 in a year or more, if at all. It's pretty clear that we can't wait that long to find out one way or another. We can only go on what we see *now*, and what we see is a clear and obvious rise in death rate, a clear and obvious rise in critical care need, and a clear and obvious source for this rise in the shape of a novel disease.

[Zacs-Master]

just supposing it were proven (or the Govt admitted....yeah, right!) that the CV19 death toll was much lower and in line with other countries, how would that alter the perspective? Would it argue for a major ‘slackening’ of restrictions? How do we know what such a slackening would lead to? Would you, honestly, as a Govt minister or the PM, be prepared to take that gamble?
Let’s not forget there are politics behind all this.