Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HovelinHove

  1. I didn’t say I was a virologist, I said I worked in virology for 15 years. My Ph.D. was in the design of antivirals. I really don’t care if you trust me or not.
  2. I agree, I don't think Boris had much of a choice...at least to start with. I don't dismiss the severity of the virus at all. I wear an FFP3 mask when I shop. I don't want to get it, I really don't, but having worked in virology for 15 years, I can assure you there are many viruses much much worse than this, and the response should have been different once we knew that. Anyway, it is all by the by now, except we need to adopt a much better approach once the elderly have been vaccinated (my Mum is getting the first jab next Thursday!). Once those who constitute 90% of deaths have been vaccinated, all restrictions can and should be lifted.
  3. The 500k projection was made in March before we had a good understanding of IFR, and the populations where death was focused. By mid April this was becoming much clearer. I was totally in agreement with the first lockdown for 3 weeks, but once it went beyond that and there wasn't a shift in strategy, I stopped supporting it. We should have always focused on hospital capacity, and I have spoken to numerous physicians who have spent most of the year doing Faff all. The virus should have been allowed to run at higher levels, thereby allowing more economic activity, and the severe restrictions and high quality PPE (e.g. FFP2 masks) reserved for the elderly and vulnerable.
  4. It's splitting hairs as he says that while people would still get infected and be infectious, they would most likely have a much less severe version of COVID. This may partly explain the huge numbers of asymptomatic people who are infected. It also points to the vaccine probably not halting infections but just reducing symptoms. As I said, the 20% does not really impact the vast sums that have been spent per 82 year old life saved. Take that number out if you like, the basic fact still remains...lockdown was a massive over reaction that has caused more social and economic destruction than good.
  5. There were other ways of reducing demand. By the way, at no point were the Nightingale hospitals used, nor the private hospitals told to stop all other work, nor most of the Non-COVID wards put on standby for COVID, even at the peak. During the most recent lockdown most ICUs had more vacant beds than the same time last year. This was a massive overkill, and less restrictive measures might have resulted in more deaths and hospitalizations, but less wider disruption and cost.
  6. Indeed, the numbers I quote do not account for non-government costs. Lockdown has been one of the greatest acts of National self-harm in modern history. It only makes sense in the context of the Great Reset. Shwab has a lot to answer for.
  7. Explain, and by the way I saw this calculation of 169k presented elsewhere. Besides, even if you took out the 20%, it would make little difference to the overall cost per life saved...20% in fact! It is still huge and completely unjustified.
  8. That's what I thought, but this person was quite insistent. Like I said, it is irrelevant as clearly a lot of people have died from COVID, but the vast majority are people who were "due to die" before long anyway from a statistical perspective, and therefore lockdown was a massive waste of money. I was saying that April when Sunak first said how much the furlough scheme would cost. If I was saying that using the demographic data that was available then, then it should also have been clear to those making decisions. Either the government just decided to follow the people who were following the media, or they were implementing the Great Reset deliberately. Both seem likely, and given that Hancock is a Davos poster boy, and Boris has been there a few times, an element of the latter makes sense.
  9. NICE applies to medicines that our society access through the NHS, that includes all medical interventions, so I am not sure of what you are talking about.
  10. I had dismissed stories of falsified COVID deaths as conspiracy theory stuff until recently, when two people who I know and trust told me that they had friends who had relatives die and the doctors tried to pass their deaths off as COVID despite no positive test, and completely unrelated symptoms (one died in a car crash!). Either way, COVID has killed a lot of people otherwise we would not have 80k excess deaths this year, my point is that even if it had killed double, treble or even quadruple that, given the age of those dying (namely those who would die soon) and the vast cost incurred, it was a massive misallocation of limited public finances.
  11. Weiskopf D, Schmitz KS, Raadsen MP, Grifoni A, Okba NMA, Endeman H, et al. Phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome [preprint]. MedRxiv 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.04.11.20062349. Sette A,. Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns. Nat Rev Immunol2020;20:457-8. . doi:10.1038/s41577-020-0389-z pmid:3263647
  12. We already do it and have done for years...hence NICE. We do not have unlimited resources.
  13. I actually help prepare NICE submissions. Acceptable cost per QUALY is 30k. If you take the ONS data for the UK that the average age of death for COVID is 83, and that the average life expectancy in the UK is 82, the cost per QUALY in this instance is infinity. We have P155ed hundreds billions up the wall for nothing.
  14. Always love it when people start throwing insults or criticising grammar...lost the argument.
  15. Even if you take Ferguson’s 250-500k deaths, we have still spent too much money per life saved. We needed to accept we had a pandemic that would have ended a large number of very elderly lives early, do our best to protect, but get on with life otherwise.
  16. They knew it from the end of march. That is when the IFR by age was first published from Wuhan, and it has ben confirmed ever since. The first few weeks of lockdown were maybe justified to allow the NHS to catch its breath, but everything after that has been disproportionate and driven by irrational behaviour.
  17. This is twisting my melon, but it is fundamentally not true. COVID is a disease that particularly affects the elderly. I have read, but can’t remember the source, that the IFR for COVID is considerably higher than the flu for those over 65, but considerably lower than the flu for those under 20. Virtually no one under 20 without some other serious risk factor, has died of COVID in the UK. So the increased infection fatality rate of COVID vs the flu, is not evenly distributed. That is why countries with poor healthcare systems but young populations have lower IFRs than wealthy countries with ageing populations. Because COVID disproportionately affects the elderly, and 90% of the excess deaths in the UK have been in the over 70s, it means that people who might have lived beyond the averge age of death in the UK, have not done so. this will bring down life expectancy slightly this year and next, but probably result it in increasing in subsequent years.
  18. I do apologise, I got my facts wrong, it is actually 83...so you are right, COVID enhances life! Of course, it doesn’t, since these people probably died sooner than they might have, although arguably if they hadn’t caught COVID, then no doubt something else would have got them pretty soon. I think what we will see is a slight lowering in life expectancy due to slightly earlier deaths in the next year or so, but then an increase after that, so over the course of the 2020s COVID will have zero impact on life expectancy. ONS data on average age of COVID death
  19. Maybe nearly 80,000 have died BECAUSE OF COVID, not necessarily with COVID, as some of those excess deaths are due to people dying of heart attacks etc because they didn’t seek medical attention. However, let’s use that number as it is relevant to the calculation. Let’s assume COVID has an overall infection fatality rate of 0.5% in the UK, which is in the middle of a range of estimates from recent literature. If we had done the bare minimum and allowed COVID to run wild, just over double the number who have died would have died – 169,000 to be precise. How do scientists arrive at that number (this was published recently too)? UK population is about 65 million. To reach herd immunity it is reckoned that 65% would need to catch COVID. That is 42,250,000. However, according to well established science, a minimum of 20% of people have pre-existing T-cell immunity to COVID, so in fact only 33,800,000 would need to catch COVID for the country to reach herd immunity and for it to have just died out. 0.5% of that number is 169,000. However, 80,000 have already died because of COVID, so in fact lockdowns have only saved about 90,000 lives. The official government figures prior to the November lockdown, showed that the UK government had borrowed an extra £280,000,000,000 to pay for COVID measures such as furlough and business grants. Do the maths. $280,000,000,000/90,000=£3,111,111. This does not include spending since the beginning of November, nor does it take into account that more people will die because of COVID and Government measures and therefore the number of lives saved will go down, and so the cost per life saved increase. Nor does it include the costs to individuals who have lost their businesses, their jobs or their mental health because of the lockdowns. Anyway, using these well established and accepted numbers we have spent over 3 million pounds (so far) to save each life. The average age of death from COVID is 82. The average life expectancy in the UK is 82. Now of course, even if we had not had lockdowns, the government would have needed to borrow money as the economy would have got in trouble due to people locking themselves down and the rest of the world doing this, but even if the government had only spent a third less than it has done by implementing lockdowns, that would still mean that lockdowns cost over £1 million per 82 year old life saved so far. Do you think this was a wise decision? Do you think this was a good way to invest resources that could have been otherwise spent on treatments for Leukemia, dementia research, better schools, renewable energy research etc etc. Or do you believe that all lives are equal…an 82 year olds life is equal to a baby’s? Or do you believe that we have unlimited money to spend? Or do you think that our government, supported by a media focused on extremes and exceptions, and encouraged by an emotional public who were incapable of understanding facts, have made one of the biggest acts of collective economic and social self harm in the history our Nation?
  20. The hit to GDP in the UK has been one of teh highest in the world. Yes, even if we hadn’t had lockdowns GDP would have gone down, but by perhaps half as much as it did...still big, but not as bad. Moreover you are not accounting for government debt incurred to pay for this.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.