Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

Unfortunately it is almost impossible to find an unbiased information source that one can totally trust .

So we all just lean on our preconceived notions .

Personally I don't believe anyone under the age of 40 should have been vaccinated.

Least of all children .

---

Correct. It is amazing how covid hysterics manipulated so many ostensibly smart people. Now that we have confirmed Covid was basically less deadly than the flu for those under 65. It's scary that so many could give up their freedoms for such a mild threat spurned by coordinated propaganda makes me worried what happens with an actual threat.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

Unfortunately it is almost impossible to find an unbiased information source that one can totally trust .

So we all just lean on our preconceived notions .

Personally I don't believe anyone under the age of 40 should have been vaccinated.

Least of all children .

---

Now that we have confirmed Covid was basically less deadly than the flu for those under 65.

---

Debunked.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

Unfortunately it is almost impossible to find an unbiased information source that one can totally trust .

So we all just lean on our preconceived notions .

Personally I don't believe anyone under the age of 40 should have been vaccinated.

Least of all children .

---

. Now that we have confirmed Covid was basically less deadly than the flu for those under 65.

---

Have not seen any legitimate data supporting this statement.

However I certainly think children under the age of 12 were at minimal risk of dying from Covid and should never be vaccinated for it .

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations
Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths
It has been two years since the first COVID-19 vaccine was given to a patient in the United States. Since then, the U.S. has administered more than 655 million doses 80 percent of the population has received at least one dose with the cumulative effect of preventing more than 18 million additional hospitalizations and more than 3 million additional deaths.

---

There are more deaths since the jab than before the jab. That is quantifiable. The "prevented" deaths and hospitalizations are simply guesses and more propaganda from the side responsible for this sorry episode in our nation's history.

---

No.

Your info is completely wrong.

"There are more deaths since the jab than before" is a nonsensical basis for saying the vaccine caused the deaths. It's not even close to any kind of scientific statement.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance.

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. These were recommendations not required government mandating. But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there.

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school.

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings).

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. But of course there are other considerations around something like that.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance.

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. These were recommendations not required government mandating. But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there.

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school.

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings).

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. But of course there are other considerations around something like that.

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

1 in 5,000 young men have heart issues from Covid Fax

1,598 athlete cardiac arrests since Jan 2021. 69% fatal

C. Jordan said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations
Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths
It has been two years since the first COVID-19 vaccine was given to a patient in the United States. Since then, the U.S. has administered more than 655 million doses 80 percent of the population has received at least one dose with the cumulative effect of preventing more than 18 million additional hospitalizations and more than 3 million additional deaths.

---

There are more deaths since the jab than before the jab. That is quantifiable. The "prevented" deaths and hospitalizations are simply guesses and more propaganda from the side responsible for this sorry episode in our nation's history.

---

No.

Your info is completely wrong.

"There are more deaths since the jab than before" is a nonsensical basis for saying the vaccine caused the deaths. It's not even close to any kind of scientific statement.

---

Which Rock are you hiding under....using UK as an example. There have been over 120K more deaths from all causes than expected since Dec 2021.... It's the same across many more countries.

Seriously - If you took the jab. You need to take Ivermectin DAILY. Increase Zinc and Magnesium intake along with 5,000 MG of Vitamin D. All vitamins taken in the morning. Strongly suggest to start this process after a 3 day fast. Then eliminate eating anything after 6pm or before 8am.

BluesBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

1 in 5,000 young men have heart issues from Covid Fax

1,598 athlete cardiac arrests since Jan 2021. 69% fatal

---

Link?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance.

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. These were recommendations not required government mandating. But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there.

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school.

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings).

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. But of course there are other considerations around something like that.

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter.

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. It missed badly.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance.

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. These were recommendations not required government mandating. But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there.

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school.

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings).

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. But of course there are other considerations around something like that.

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter.

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. It missed badly.

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance.

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. These were recommendations not required government mandating. But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there.

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school.

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings).

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. But of course there are other considerations around something like that.

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter.

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. It missed badly.

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

---

The policies were in place from the start. If they worked to slow infection and death it wouldn't get worse AFTER the measures were tightened. And I don't mean a little worse, it got monumentally worse. There were 340,000 COVID cases in the UK when the government mandated self isolation and quarantine. Six months later there were over 4 million cases, and that's pre-Delta, which got worse. Simple logic would tell you an equal or moderate increase case trend would follow improved suppression efforts, The opposite happened.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance.

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. These were recommendations not required government mandating. But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there.

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school.

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings).

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. But of course there are other considerations around something like that.

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter.

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. It missed badly.

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

---

The policies were in place from the start. If they worked to slow infection and death it wouldn't get worse AFTER the measures were tightened. And I don't mean a little worse, it got monumentally worse. There were 340,000 COVID cases in the UK when the government mandated self isolation and quarantine. Six months later there were over 4 million cases, and that's pre-Delta, which got worse. Simple logic would tell you an equal or moderate increase case trend would follow improved suppression efforts, The opposite happened.

---

You're not thinking geometrically. If it takes six months to add 340K, that doesn't mean it will take another six months to add another 340K. The effect of interventions is on transmission rates. If you're on a steep rise to begin with, you can curb it significantly and still see a large increase. And governments typically give these orders when hospitalizations and deaths are already rising, as in this case.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance.

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. These were recommendations not required government mandating. But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there.

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school.

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings).

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. But of course there are other considerations around something like that.

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter.

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. It missed badly.

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

---

The policies were in place from the start. If they worked to slow infection and death it wouldn't get worse AFTER the measures were tightened. And I don't mean a little worse, it got monumentally worse. There were 340,000 COVID cases in the UK when the government mandated self isolation and quarantine. Six months later there were over 4 million cases, and that's pre-Delta, which got worse. Simple logic would tell you an equal or moderate increase case trend would follow improved suppression efforts, The opposite happened.

---

You're not thinking geometrically. If it takes six months to add 340K, that doesn't mean it will take another six months to add another 340K. The effect of interventions is on transmission rates. If you're on a steep rise to begin with, you can curb it significantly and still see a large increase. And governments typically give these orders when hospitalizations and deaths are already rising, as in this case.

---

Yes, they measure transmission rates through daily new cases. You might see a spike rise, then a plateau and perhaps a decline. Prior to the government mandate on isolation, they were concerned about the increase from 8-900 cases a day jumping to 2000 that moved to 3000 shortly after implementation. Two months after mandates they were running over 20,000 per day, and 4 months in they were over 40,000 per day. Not only was there no impact to transmission, rates got exponentially (geometry) worse.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. %A0Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. %A0And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance. %A0

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. %A0These were recommendations not required government mandating. %A0But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there. %A0

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. %A0Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. %A0During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. %A0Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. %A0So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. %A0The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school. %A0

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. %A0If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! %A0Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings). %A0

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. %A0I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. %A0If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. %A0But of course there are other considerations around something like that. %A0

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter. %A0 %A0

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. %A0No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. %A0Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. %A0But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. %A0It missed badly. %A0

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

---

The policies were in place from the start. %A0If they worked to slow infection and death it wouldn't get worse AFTER the measures were tightened. %A0And I don't mean a little worse, it got monumentally worse. %A0There were 340,000 COVID cases in the UK when the government mandated self isolation and quarantine. %A0Six months later there were over 4 million cases, and that's pre-Delta, which got worse. %A0Simple logic would tell you an equal or moderate increase case trend would follow improved suppression efforts, %A0The opposite happened. %A0

---

You're not thinking geometrically. If it takes six months to add 340K, that doesn't mean it will take another six months to add another 340K. The effect of interventions is on transmission rates. If you're on a steep rise to begin with, you can curb it significantly and still see a large increase. And governments typically give these orders when hospitalizations and deaths are already rising, as in this case.

---

Yes, they measure transmission rates through daily new cases. %A0You might see a spike rise, then a plateau and perhaps a decline. %A0Prior to the government mandate on isolation, they were concerned about the increase from 8-900 cases a day jumping to 2000 that moved to 3000 shortly after implementation. %A0Two months after mandates they were running over 20,000 per day, and 4 months in they were over 40,000 per day. %A0Not only was there no impact to transmission, rates got exponentially (geometry) worse.

---

A spike rise, plateau, and decline is a good description of what happened. It was followed by another spike in December due the Alpha variant, which was 40-80% more transmissible. Also, the relevant metric in terms of the model's predictions is deaths, not cases. Despite the dramatic rise in cases during the second wave, peak deaths per day were only a few hundred above the first peak in April.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. %A0Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. %A0And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance. %A0

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. %A0These were recommendations not required government mandating. %A0But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there. %A0

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. %A0Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. %A0During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. %A0Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. %A0So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. %A0The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school. %A0

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. %A0If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! %A0Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings). %A0

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. %A0I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. %A0If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. %A0But of course there are other considerations around something like that. %A0

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter. %A0 %A0

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. %A0No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. %A0Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. %A0But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. %A0It missed badly. %A0

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

---

The policies were in place from the start. %A0If they worked to slow infection and death it wouldn't get worse AFTER the measures were tightened. %A0And I don't mean a little worse, it got monumentally worse. %A0There were 340,000 COVID cases in the UK when the government mandated self isolation and quarantine. %A0Six months later there were over 4 million cases, and that's pre-Delta, which got worse. %A0Simple logic would tell you an equal or moderate increase case trend would follow improved suppression efforts, %A0The opposite happened. %A0

---

You're not thinking geometrically. If it takes six months to add 340K, that doesn't mean it will take another six months to add another 340K. The effect of interventions is on transmission rates. If you're on a steep rise to begin with, you can curb it significantly and still see a large increase. And governments typically give these orders when hospitalizations and deaths are already rising, as in this case.

---

Yes, they measure transmission rates through daily new cases. %A0You might see a spike rise, then a plateau and perhaps a decline. %A0Prior to the government mandate on isolation, they were concerned about the increase from 8-900 cases a day jumping to 2000 that moved to 3000 shortly after implementation. %A0Two months after mandates they were running over 20,000 per day, and 4 months in they were over 40,000 per day. %A0Not only was there no impact to transmission, rates got exponentially (geometry) worse.

---

A spike rise, plateau, and decline is a good description of what happened. It was followed by another spike in December due the Alpha variant, which was 40-80% more transmissible. Also, the relevant metric in terms of the model's predictions is deaths, not cases. Despite the dramatic rise in cases during the second wave, peak deaths per day were only a few hundred above the first peak in April.

---

C'mon Sam. Deaths increased exponentially (compared to predictions) and I used that, but you said we needed to look at transmission rate, not deaths. So I showed where transmission rate increased exponentially, and now you're back to deaths with the argument, well cases increased, but the daily death rate wasn't as high and the virus was more transmissible. I'm sorry, but the model was poor, the recommendations were mostly ineffective, and the data shows it any way you want to evaluate it. A weaker and slightly more transmissible virus profile doesn't explain away the huge difference in model performance.

BTW. The R0 variable already took into account the Alpha variant transmission range, and why I didn't include Delta or Omicron period comparisons which have significantly higher R0.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. %A0Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. %A0And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance. %A0

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. %A0These were recommendations not required government mandating. %A0But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there. %A0

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. %A0Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. %A0During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. %A0Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. %A0So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. %A0The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school. %A0

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. %A0If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! %A0Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings). %A0

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. %A0I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. %A0If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. %A0But of course there are other considerations around something like that. %A0

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter. %A0 %A0

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. %A0No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. %A0Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. %A0But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. %A0It missed badly. %A0

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

---

The policies were in place from the start. %A0If they worked to slow infection and death it wouldn't get worse AFTER the measures were tightened. %A0And I don't mean a little worse, it got monumentally worse. %A0There were 340,000 COVID cases in the UK when the government mandated self isolation and quarantine. %A0Six months later there were over 4 million cases, and that's pre-Delta, which got worse. %A0Simple logic would tell you an equal or moderate increase case trend would follow improved suppression efforts, %A0The opposite happened. %A0

---

You're not thinking geometrically. If it takes six months to add 340K, that doesn't mean it will take another six months to add another 340K. The effect of interventions is on transmission rates. If you're on a steep rise to begin with, you can curb it significantly and still see a large increase. And governments typically give these orders when hospitalizations and deaths are already rising, as in this case.

---

Yes, they measure transmission rates through daily new cases. %A0You might see a spike rise, then a plateau and perhaps a decline. %A0Prior to the government mandate on isolation, they were concerned about the increase from 8-900 cases a day jumping to 2000 that moved to 3000 shortly after implementation. %A0Two months after mandates they were running over 20,000 per day, and 4 months in they were over 40,000 per day. %A0Not only was there no impact to transmission, rates got exponentially (geometry) worse.

---

A spike rise, plateau, and decline is a good description of what happened. It was followed by another spike in December due the Alpha variant, which was 40-80% more transmissible. Also, the relevant metric in terms of the model's predictions is deaths, not cases. Despite the dramatic rise in cases during the second wave, peak deaths per day were only a few hundred above the first peak in April.

---

C'mon Sam. Deaths increased exponentially (compared to predictions) and I used that, but you said we needed to look at transmission rate, not deaths. So I showed where transmission rate increased exponentially, and now you're back to deaths with the argument, well cases increased, but the daily death rate wasn't as high and the virus was more transmissible. I'm sorry, but the model was poor, the recommendations were mostly ineffective, and the data shows it any way you want to evaluate it. A weaker and slightly more transmissible virus profile doesn't explain away the huge difference in model performance.

BTW. The R0 variable already took into account the Alpha variant transmission range, and why I didn't include Delta or Omicron period comparisons which have significantly higher R0.

---

I didn't say not to look at deaths. I said you can't look at them as a simple function of how long interventions are in place. Where you are on the curve and what happened before the intervention affects what happens after.

Whether Alpha transmission was within the expected range is irrelevant. The point is that it accounts for the relative difference in case numbers before and after the spike.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

But again, the triggers only apply to social distancing and school closures. "Other policies are assumed to start in late March and remain in place."

---

Those are the only other variables/recommendations outside of the infected and immediate family stay at home recommendations. %A0Those were definitely in place and only until after mass vaccination were those eased, which was also the study recommendation. %A0And again, the model accounted for a 75 (infected) and 50 (family) percent compliance. %A0

---

We're talking about government mandates, not just recommendations. Where did you see these in place?

---

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns

---

I'm sorry, but that's not very informative. You're showing me about 30 times when different restrictions were imposed or lifted. Which ones were in place continuously? To review the specific policies in question:

-Mandatory isolation of suspected cases
-Mandatory quarantine of families
-Mandatory distancing of entire population 2/3 of the time

---

You're arguing something I'm not, and you're applying a standard that isn't part of the model. %A0These were recommendations not required government mandating. %A0But the government did mandate many of the recommendations, and the overreaching guidance on isolation was always there. %A0

That's a timeline of institution of specific policies starts, easing of strictness and restarting of many of them. %A0Some form of social distancing was in place all the way until mid 2022. %A0During the first 18 months of the pandemic most indoor gatherings were banned and then limited to small sizes. %A0Schools were face to face for only 3 months from April 2020 through April 2021. %A0So as I've said, the recommendations were in place and many directly government mandated. %A0The model didn't say zero contact, it forecasted the impact of a reduction outside of work and school. %A0

---

I'm applying the standard that is part of the best-case scenario. It's not zero contact, but it is continuous. Banning mass gatherings wasn't projected to make much difference. As it turns out, neither did school closures. The model assumes that children transmit to each other at the same rate as adults. We now know that isn't true, but there was no way to know at the time. I think lockdowns made a difference--we've disagreed on that before, so I'm glad you changed your mind--but they were immediately politicized and sporadically applied.

---

And I'm utilizing their worst case scenario with the recommendations they suggested, and they missed by a ton. %A0If I used your best case model they would miss by a factor of over 10! %A0Hence back to the original issue of a bad model used as justification for policies that didn't work (like school closings). %A0

And I didn't say lockdowns don't work. %A0I said lockdowns in shared living spaces with common air systems aren't going to work with a respiratory virus of this type. %A0If everyone could hunker down in their own isolated home, sure that's going to work. %A0But of course there are other considerations around something like that. %A0

---

The UK didn't mandate case isolation until late September 2020. The reason for the mandate was a study that showed a compliance rate of 18% (as opposed to the 70% assumed by the IC model). This is particularly important because the success of the suppression model depends on early implementation. So I just can't agree that all measures were in place as intended. As for school closings, you can't run a model without assumptions. Some of them will always be wrong. That doesn't mean the model is bad.

---

Self isolation (infected) and close contact quarantine was part of the guidelines from the beginning, so not sure what you're referencing, but after codifying it deaths and cases spiked the most over the next 12 months, so improved compliance didn't really matter. %A0 %A0

Models are judged by their proximity to forecasted outcome. %A0No one expects exactitude, only a reasonable delta range. %A0Even if it was off by 50% or even 100%, you might say it was a pretty fair estimate, and the recommendations were appropriate. %A0But this was 500 - 1000%+ off, and the predictions were aided by other measures not considered like mask mandates, business closures, and vaccines. %A0It missed badly. %A0

---

And that's just not how any of this works. The whole suppression strategy was based on quickly getting the reproduction rate down and maintaining it there. You can't assume that tweaking the policy six months later is going to magically reboot the whole pandemic and put you on the same track as before. That does not mean improved compliance doesn't matter. It just doesn't work retroactively.

---

The policies were in place from the start. %A0If they worked to slow infection and death it wouldn't get worse AFTER the measures were tightened. %A0And I don't mean a little worse, it got monumentally worse. %A0There were 340,000 COVID cases in the UK when the government mandated self isolation and quarantine. %A0Six months later there were over 4 million cases, and that's pre-Delta, which got worse. %A0Simple logic would tell you an equal or moderate increase case trend would follow improved suppression efforts, %A0The opposite happened. %A0

---

You're not thinking geometrically. If it takes six months to add 340K, that doesn't mean it will take another six months to add another 340K. The effect of interventions is on transmission rates. If you're on a steep rise to begin with, you can curb it significantly and still see a large increase. And governments typically give these orders when hospitalizations and deaths are already rising, as in this case.

---

Yes, they measure transmission rates through daily new cases. %A0You might see a spike rise, then a plateau and perhaps a decline. %A0Prior to the government mandate on isolation, they were concerned about the increase from 8-900 cases a day jumping to 2000 that moved to 3000 shortly after implementation. %A0Two months after mandates they were running over 20,000 per day, and 4 months in they were over 40,000 per day. %A0Not only was there no impact to transmission, rates got exponentially (geometry) worse.

---

A spike rise, plateau, and decline is a good description of what happened. It was followed by another spike in December due the Alpha variant, which was 40-80% more transmissible. Also, the relevant metric in terms of the model's predictions is deaths, not cases. Despite the dramatic rise in cases during the second wave, peak deaths per day were only a few hundred above the first peak in April.

---

C'mon Sam. Deaths increased exponentially (compared to predictions) and I used that, but you said we needed to look at transmission rate, not deaths. So I showed where transmission rate increased exponentially, and now you're back to deaths with the argument, well cases increased, but the daily death rate wasn't as high and the virus was more transmissible. I'm sorry, but the model was poor, the recommendations were mostly ineffective, and the data shows it any way you want to evaluate it. A weaker and slightly more transmissible virus profile doesn't explain away the huge difference in model performance.

BTW. The R0 variable already took into account the Alpha variant transmission range, and why I didn't include Delta or Omicron period comparisons which have significantly higher R0.

---

I didn't say not to look at deaths. I said you can't look at them as a simple function of how long interventions are in place. Where you are on the curve and what happened before the intervention affects what happens after.

---

I did exactly that. Deaths were low and trending flat when stricter interventions started. Cases were trending up relatively
modest prior to stricter intervention measures, including a 10,000 pound fine for violating self isolation if infected. Below are the visuals. Sept 22, 2020 is noted as that's the start date of the stricter measures (others were already in place).

Quote:

---

Whether Alpha transmission was within the expected range is irrelevant. The point is that it accounts for the relative difference in case numbers before and after the spike
.

---

It's relevant because the model incorporated the Alpha variant spread factor. Alpha R0 has been assessed between 2-3. The model gave forecasts with R0 values of 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6. So saying the mitigation/suppression forecasts were extraordinarily wrong because the COVID variant was more infectious than anticipated isn't correct because its transmissibility was accounted for. And its spread factor would not account for such an exponential increase in actual outcome, especially when it's occurring during increased mitigation/suppression measures. That would be a reflection of the effectiveness of the measures themselves in slowing/reducing spread.

With COVID, the virus is going to virus, regardless of what we do. I'm just glad it wasn't as deadly as others, like the flu when it was novel, because this one has been highly infectious. It's as infectious as its cousin the common cold but not as deadly as its other cousins SARS-1 and MERS. Let's hope that doesn't change.

Let me try putting this another way. Show me where the model predicted the trend line between August 2020 and January 2021. Then we can talk about what was wrong with the model.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Let me try putting this another way. Show me where the model predicted the trend line between August 2020 and January 2021. Then we can talk about what was wrong with the model.

---

It was a 2 year forecast model.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Let me try putting this another way. Show me where the model predicted the trend line between August 2020 and January 2021. Then we can talk about what was wrong with the model.

---

It was a 2 year forecast model.

---

Exactly.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Let me try putting this another way. Show me where the model predicted the trend line between August 2020 and January 2021. Then we can talk about what was wrong with the model.

---

It was a 2 year forecast model.

---

Exactly.

---

??? The model literally included the time frame I am utilizing in their own graphs. I'm showing you where within this 4 month period utilizing the exact mitigation/suppression strategies they recommended AND modeled (forgetting the fact there were additional measures in place) there were exponentially more deaths within that 4 month period than their model predicted to occur over 2 years. Read that prior sentence again and let it sink in.

If I took it out to two years it would be even more exponentially worse, but I didn't want to bring in other variables not accounted for like Delta and Omicron's transmission rate (R0), vaccines, etc.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Let me try putting this another way. Show me where the model predicted the trend line between August 2020 and January 2021. Then we can talk about what was wrong with the model.

---

It was a 2 year forecast model.

---

Exactly.

---

??? The model literally included the time frame I am utilizing in their own graphs. I'm showing you where within this 4 month period utilizing the exact mitigation/suppression strategies they recommended AND modeled (forgetting the fact there were additional measures in place) there were exponentially more deaths within that 4 month period than their model predicted to occur over 2 years. Read that prior sentence again and let it sink in.

If I took it out to two years it would be even more exponentially worse, but I didn't want to bring in other variables not accounted for like Delta and Omicron's transmission rate (R0), vaccines, etc.

---

It's a two-year model that assumes these measures are in place from the beginning. We've just established that at least one important measure was effectively not in place for the second and third quarters of the year. That affects what happens in the last quarter. You can't change one side of the graph and assume the other side will look the same. It doesn't matter if R0 was within the variable range. The proposed measures were supposed to keep it below 1. Everything else depended on that. Lockdowns, which were among the additional measures you mentioned, did bring it below 1 in some places for some periods. But it quickly rose again when they were lifted.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Let me try putting this another way. Show me where the model predicted the trend line between August 2020 and January 2021. Then we can talk about what was wrong with the model.

---

It was a 2 year forecast model.

---

Exactly.

---

??? The model literally included the time frame I am utilizing in their own graphs. I'm showing you where within this 4 month period utilizing the exact mitigation/suppression strategies they recommended AND modeled (forgetting the fact there were additional measures in place) there were exponentially more deaths within that 4 month period than their model predicted to occur over 2 years. Read that prior sentence again and let it sink in.

If I took it out to two years it would be even more exponentially worse, but I didn't want to bring in other variables not accounted for like Delta and Omicron's transmission rate (R0), vaccines, etc.

---

It's a two-year model that assumes these measures are in place from the beginning. We've just established that at least one important measure was effectively not in place for the second and third quarters of the year. That affects what happens in the last quarter. You can't change one side of the graph and assume the other side will look the same. It doesn't matter if R0 was within the variable range. The proposed measures were supposed to keep it below 1. Everything else depended on that. Lockdowns, which were among the additional measures you mentioned, did bring it below 1 in some places for some periods. But it quickly rose again when they were lifted.

---

What important "from the beginning" measure wasn't in place in the second and third quarter? Only two measures were anticipated to be in place consistently, which was isolation of the infected and quarantine of close contacts. Those were always there. The UK government simply added fines for non compliance to a policy already in place. And the model even accounted for people not complying. Hence why I used the term "stricter" and not new and/or additional for those measures.

The model had specific trigger points to initiate the additional measures. The trigger was ICU patients with COVID. The UK government followed that trigger exactly as recommended (100-200 ICU cases to be precise). What you seem to be ignoring or refuse to acknowledge is that the actual real world data showed the measures had little to no impact, and the virus churned unencumbered in a seasonal pattern or wave, which viruses do. We still see it today (waves/spikes) and there are few if any measures in place except, ironically, the self isolation, which isn't enforced as strictly. The waves don't die out now because measures were implemented.

Where R0 becomes important is it considers time from infection, to symptom to severity. By using how Alpha actually performed (they didn't know it at the time) at least that component necessary to evaluate how to reduce triggers to below thresholds and for R to 1 or less was able to be evaluated against measures applied.

The fact it was 4-6 months later before decline occurred shows the ineffectiveness. If they were effective, spikes would have been significantly lower and plateaus and declines reached sooner, which is what the model predicted. You don't start measures with 200 people in ICU with COVID, 30 daily deaths, and 5,000 daily new cases and 4 months later you're at 4,000 in the ICU, 1400 daily deaths, and 45,000 daily new cases then actually believe the measures are being effective, or try to infer this was about what was happening "before the measures". That's absurd and a suspension of logic. It is a reflection of what was happening during enhanced measures.

Osodecentx said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

1 in 5,000 young men have heart issues from Covid Fax

1,598 athlete cardiac arrests since Jan 2021. 69% fatal

---

Link?

---

This is the best link I could find for it:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-athlete-deaths-1500-989195878254

JXL said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

1 in 5,000 young men have heart issues from Covid Fax

1,598 athlete cardiac arrests since Jan 2021. 69% fatal

---

Link?

---

This is the best link I could find for it:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-athlete-deaths-1500-989195878254

---

Looks like your link says information about sudden death in athletes is false.

I tried to cut and paste but can't

Here is headline
Claims baselessly link COVID vaccines to athlete deaths

Thanks for the link

China, under the most dire headlines of the entire pandemic last few weeks, just xompletely reopened

Amazing any y'all still on the covid bandwagon.

They accounted for 30% non-compliance, not 80+%. They would disagree with your statement that spikes would have been lower, etc. if the measures had been effective. According to their model, failure to maintain intensive measures consistently was likely to have this result or worse.

China just neutered the entire argument being made in support of the trash the democrat socialists threw out there for covid

Might make for interesting debate but that debate just got bowled the f over

Game over

Fre3dombear said:

---

China just neutered the entire argument being made in support of the trash the democrat socialists threw out there for covid

Might make for interesting debate but that debate just got bowled the f over

Game over

---

China apparently recognizes what I've been trying to explain: at some point it becomes too late for a zero-covid policy to work.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

China just neutered the entire argument being made in support of the trash the democrat socialists threw out there for covid

Might make for interesting debate but that debate just got bowled the f over

Game over

---

China apparently recognizes what I've been trying to explain: at some point it becomes too late for a zero-covid policy to work.

---

unless you are an isolated island, there is no zero covid policy that will work.

Sam Lowry said:

---

They accounted for 30% non-compliance, not 80+%. They would disagree with your statement that spikes would have been lower, etc. if the measures had been effective. According to their model, failure to maintain intensive measures consistently was likely to have this result or worse.

---

Wrong. Compliance was much higher than you are stating. Dozens of articles and studies out there. You used an outdated one (pre period we're discussing).

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

China just neutered the entire argument being made in support of the trash the democrat socialists threw out there for covid

Might make for interesting debate but that debate just got bowled the f over

Game over

---

China apparently recognizes what I've been trying to explain: at some point it becomes too late for a zero-covid policy to work.

---

unless you are an isolated island, there is no zero covid policy that will work.

---

There isn't even a limited COVID policy that will work.

ATL Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

China just neutered the entire argument being made in support of the trash the democrat socialists threw out there for covid

Might make for interesting debate but that debate just got bowled the f over

Game over

---

China apparently recognizes what I've been trying to explain: at some point it becomes too late for a zero-covid policy to work.

---

unless you are an isolated island, there is no zero covid policy that will work.

---

There isn't even a limited COVID policy that will work.

---

I finally have come to accept this .

Eventually our mad scientists are going to engineer a real super killer bug ….and billions are going to die .

We are in fact …..that stupid of a species .

Osodecentx said:

---

JXL said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The stats may not bear this out ... but there seem to be a lot of seemingly healthy young men afflicted with cardiac-related issues the last few years.

---

1 in 5,000 young men have heart issues from Covid Fax

1,598 athlete cardiac arrests since Jan 2021. 69% fatal

---

Link?

---

This is the best link I could find for it:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-athlete-deaths-1500-989195878254

---

Looks like your link says information about sudden death in athletes is false.

I tried to cut and paste but can't

Here is headline
Claims baselessly link COVID vaccines to athlete deaths

Thanks for the link

---

Yes, my point was that the claim is bogus.