Off Topic Covid 19 restrictions have done one

Omicron: Is 'natural immunity' better than a vaccine?

To save you reading it all, the answer is 'it depends' and you can select the expert opinion of your choice.

https://www.dw.com/en/omicron-is-natural-immunity-better-than-a-vaccine/a-60425426

 

Imagine the protests if they force that on us...

 

Might deal with a few more health issues beyond Covid...

 

Might cause some as well...

 

I know someone who spends half the year in Valencia, lucky lad as it is a great place, as his daughter works there,got stuck over there when it first blew up and hasn't come back. He said that people moaning here about the restrictions we had would have had a breakdown with the way they were enforced there. Easier to enforce when you need to carry ID or you can be held until you can prove who you are. People there followed the rules more anyway. Not that it all seems to have worked a whole lot better. It seems no one has the definitive answer of how to deal with it.

 

Interesting read. “The reality is the Prime Minister was shown a terrifying model which was subsequently proven to be widely incorrect but he took away freedoms from tens of millions on that basis.“

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-covid-modelling-caused-boris-johnson-bounce/

 

If he had dismissed it and thousands more people subsequently died, including members of your family, who would you blame?

 

But he didn’t……we have no way of knowing what the alternative result to a lock down would have been.

 

And that’s the point, as mentioned above there is no definitive answer, so offering speculation as a suggestion it’s been handled wrongly is bonkers.

 

Not really - it’s proven that the models used to justify a lockdown were wrong. It’s as simple as that

 

Not if you can see a number of flaws in the methodology in the first place.

 

Strange lots of us were saying it at the time

 

But they were all models, just predictions and nothing more. You never answered my question.

 

It is, but the 'experts' were tasked with predicting, and plenty pointed out the flaws in their methodology at the time, and told to leave it to the experts and follow the science.

I think many did that because it was the stock response they'd read on twitter, and that was their only real education on the topic.

 

The lessons 'learned' need not have been needed, had they not been so arrogant to dismiss peoples comments flagging up what were obvious issues.

Claiming they were 'always going to use worse case scenario' is a red herring for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there predictions were based on poor data, which as highlighted at the time, would lead to a poor outcome.

In addition, it wasn't 'always the case' as it was presented more as a sensitivity test for the model, and wasn't initially presented as an actual prediction (in most cases, but one 'expert' stands out as an exception).

This was compounded by those producing the predictions, having their work passed through several groups, who each edited it before it got to the decision makers, many of whom were not 'experts' in the areas that informed the predictions, so not in a position to challenge it.

They made a pigs ear of it, and that has a financial, social and health cost that we will be paying for many years.

If a lesson is learned, it should be to listen when people flag up concerns, and not be so arrogant and pompous as to think they can be dismissed if they're not on an 'expert' group.

EDIT, oh, and another lesson is, bin twitter.