Lockdown will end - Everything back to normal in June?

Watch
Poll: Will everything be back to normal in May?
Yes (1)
6.25%
No (15)
93.75%
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
(Original post by DiddyDec)
To quote Chris Whitty last year "Wearing a mask if you don't have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that."
And he also said we would have 4000 deaths a day without a second lockdown. I don't condone that boy harassing him in the street, but he was right in what he said, that Whitty has lied.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by Megacent)
And he also said we would have 4000 deaths a day without a second lockdown. I don't condone that boy harassing him in the street, but he was right in what he said, that Whitty has lied.
While I agree with much of what has been said this point is a misnomer. That was a scenario based on doing nothing. The media just presented it as a forecast.

It's kind of like when Carney predicted the apocalypse is No Deal Brexit occured but he pointed out it was a scenario asked for by the Treasury and not the banks median forecast. The media completely ignored that nuance.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
(Original post by Rakas21)
While I agree with much of what has been said this point is a misnomer. That was a scenario based on doing nothing.
The data did not support the assertion that we could have 4000 deaths a day if we did nothing. That figure was based on outdated information, new data made that older projection inaccurate. They knew this, but still used the 4000 figure as a big scary number to frighten us into a second lockdown. They have pursued a policy of fear, and in my view that's disgraceful.
Last edited by Megacent; 1 week ago
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 week ago
#44
(Original post by DiddyDec)
To quote Chris Whitty last year "Wearing a mask if you don't have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that."
(Original post by Megacent)
If they do work, why did he say in March that they didn't?
Yes, so exactly as I thought. Chris Whitty said that mask wearing was ineffective at reducing your own risk if you don't have an infection.
However, plenty of studies suggest that mask wearing is effective at reducing the risk to others if you do have covid-19. Including if you are asymptomatic and including if you have no idea you have covid-19. Therefore, mask-wearing is effective at limiting the spread of the virus and reducing collective risk. Chris Whitty has not said that masks "don't help".
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by 04MR17)
Yes, so exactly as I thought. Chris Whitty said that mask wearing was ineffective at reducing your own risk if you don't have an infection.
However, plenty of studies suggest that mask wearing is effective at reducing the risk to others if you do have covid-19. Including if you are asymptomatic and including if you have no idea you have covid-19. Therefore, mask-wearing is effective at limiting the spread of the virus and reducing collective risk. Chris Whitty has not said that masks "don't help".
Tbh I think he had good intentions there. Masks were in short supply and he didn't want people buying up all the available stock and leaving the NHS short. But as for the 4000 deaths a day, why did he make that claim when he knew it was based on oudated information and the most recent data simply didn't support it?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(Original post by Megacent)
Tbh I think he had good intentions there. Masks were in short supply and he didn't want people buying up all the available stock and leaving the NHS short. But as for the 4000 deaths a day, why did he make that claim when he knew it was based on oudated information and the most recent data simply didn't support it?
I am unfamiliar with the context and I do not wish to be drawn into a separate discussion to the one I first entered. Thank you.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(Original post by 04MR17)
I am unfamiliar with the context and I do not wish to be drawn into a separate discussion to the one I first entered. Thank you.
Lol ok
0
reply
jonathanemptage
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
Another update: all social restrictions will be lifted by 21st June. Night clubs, pubs, venues, weddings etc.
June 21st at the earliest I think you'll find.
2
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(Original post by Megacent)
The data did not support the assertion that we could have 4000 deaths a day if we did nothing. That figure was based on outdated information, new data made that older projection inaccurate. They knew this, but still used the 4000 figure as a big scary number to frighten us into a second lockdown. They have pursued a policy of fear, and in my view that's disgraceful.
Yes it did. Bearing in mind the modelling was trying to model an unknown pandemic.

It’s obvious that you’re upset about something. Please do tell us why you’re so upset.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#50
Report 6 days ago
#50
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Yes it did. Bearing in mind the modelling was trying to model an unknown pandemic.

It’s obvious that you’re upset about something. Please do tell us why you’re so upset.
No it didn't. The 4000 deaths a day projection was based on the number of cases they had at the time. But in the time between them making that projection and telling us, the case numbers had dropped quite a bit. So the 4000 deaths a day figure was no longer accurate, the real number of deaths a day in a worst case scenario at that point would actually be lower. They were misleading people, plain and simple. That's what I'm upset about.
Last edited by Megacent; 6 days ago
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#51
Report 6 days ago
#51
(Original post by Megacent)
No it didn't. The 4000 deaths a day projection was based on the number of cases they had at the time. But in the time between them making that projection and telling us, the case numbers had dropped quite a bit. So the 4000 deaths a day figure was no longer accurate, the real number of deaths a day in a worst case scenario at that point would actually be lower. They were misleading people, plain and simple. That's what I'm upset about.
They weren’t misleading people. They were enforcing a system to reduce the spread of the virus to manageable levels.

It’s a bit like saying wearing a seat belt saves lives. But unless you have a car crash you’ll never be able to demonstrate that.

If you’re a conspiraloon, can you tell me why the government would want to unnecessarily lock the country down at a cost of billions? What would be the benefit of that?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (57)
13.94%
Virtual campus tours/open days (95)
23.23%
Live streaming events (38)
9.29%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (39)
9.54%
A uni comparison tool (92)
22.49%
An in-person event when available (88)
21.52%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed