Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[JAS]

Rangers living up to expectations Jas.
Worst CL team in Champions League history.

Well it’s one of those rare occasions when your expectations have been fulfilled. Yes they have been dire this season and a pale shadow of what they were last season, we can only speculate on the reasons for that. I don’t think in the grand scheme of things that the goal difference (which statistically condemns them to that awful record) matters. The nil points and the manner of the capitulations does and that will be a sobering post-mortem.

In mitigation 1. Their injury list is horrific 2. Napoli must be in the running for the best Pot 3 performance ever. 3. Although Liverpool look domestically vulnerable they blow hot and cold and we played them on a night where they happened to be extra hot.

So, unlucky draw and bad timing of injuries and therefore a completely unsettled team. Throw in a bit of a hangover from last years efforts and there you have it, it is what it is. Do you think they should deliberately make sure they don’t win the league now to avoid a similar humiliation next season?

As it happens there are 4 teams in the last 16 that Rangers have gotten the better of in the past 3 seasons so they can’t be as far away and you’d like to paint them, despite the results in the last 6 games siding with your theory.

Balanced out a bit by getting Ajax, the worst Pot 1 team. Could have been even worse for Rangers if they'd drawn Bayern, PSG or Real instead of Ajax.

Well thanks for not listening (or maybe comprehending) a single word of what I said. No points is no points you can’t get minus points. They need to pick the bones of why they only managed to actually compete for 100 minutes out of 540. The actual goal difference was largely irrelevant. 6-0 0-6 from Real Madrid instead of 4-0 1-3 from Ajax would have made no difference however getting a pot 3 team like shaky donuts instead of Napoli could have been very different.

[super_realist]

Rangers living up to expectations Jas.
Worst CL team in Champions League history.

Well it’s one of those rare occasions when your expectations have been fulfilled. Yes they have been dire this season and a pale shadow of what they were last season, we can only speculate on the reasons for that. I don’t think in the grand scheme of things that the goal difference (which statistically condemns them to that awful record) matters. The nil points and the manner of the capitulations does and that will be a sobering post-mortem.

In mitigation 1. Their injury list is horrific 2. Napoli must be in the running for the best Pot 3 performance ever. 3. Although Liverpool look domestically vulnerable they blow hot and cold and we played them on a night where they happened to be extra hot.

So, unlucky draw and bad timing of injuries and therefore a completely unsettled team. Throw in a bit of a hangover from last years efforts and there you have it, it is what it is. Do you think they should deliberately make sure they don’t win the league now to avoid a similar humiliation next season?

As it happens there are 4 teams in the last 16 that Rangers have gotten the better of in the past 3 seasons so they can’t be as far away and you’d like to paint them, despite the results in the last 6 games siding with your theory.

As Rangers and Celtic are always so keen to point out, failure to qualify for the Champions League in past years is always blamed on "completely different teams from this year's" yet, when they get a good result in recent years it's a good barometer of where could be. Doesn't make sense really if you ignore failures and only count the results you like.

Celtic and Rangers seem to be lacking in fitness. Unacceptable really considering that costs nothing.
Id always said that this year was a free shot. They were always going to struggle and it shows them how much work they have to do. Incremental improvements have to be shown next years and what you can't get in skill has to be reflected by not collapsing in the last 30 mins.

[JAS]

As Rangers and Celtic are always so keen to point out, failure to qualify for the Champions League in past years is always blamed on "completely different teams from this year's" yet, when they get a good result in recent years it's a good barometer of where could be. Doesn't make sense really if you ignore failures and only count the results you like.

Celtic and Rangers seem to be lacking in fitness. Unacceptable really considering that costs nothing.
Id always said that this year was a free shot. They were always going to struggle and it shows them how much work they have to do. Incremental improvements have to be shown next years and what you can't get in skill has to be reflected by not collapsing in the last 30 mins.

By the same token if you ignore the successes and only focus on the failures it makes you come across as bitter, twisted and resentful of the Old Firms place in Scottish football.

I'm not 100% they're lacking in fitness either, maybe they are, how much of fitness at the highest level is in the mind. i.e. do players lay 110% on the line when their confidence is shot to pieces. I don't like to say it but I do think GVB has talked them down by overstating what a step up it is in the CL. It's all speculation now, I'm not definitively saying they were fitter under Gerrard but had Gerrard still been in charge I'm utterly convinced they wouldn't have had a goal difference of -20. By the same token, I don't think Gerrard would have got them anywhere near Seville

[super_realist]

I'm not resentful of the OF position in Scottish football, they deserve to be where they are in Scotland. My position is that they aren't as good, big, relevant, attractive, fit, talented and prestigious as they like to think they are.

If they were, they could attract top players and top managers. Times change, and just like the football world has left the likes of Galatasaray, Porto, Parma and AEK Athens behind, the same is true of the OF.

[JAS]

I'm not resentful of the OF position in Scottish football, they deserve to be where they are in Scotland. My position is that they aren't as good, big, relevant, attractive, fit, talented and prestigious as they like to think they are.

If they were, they could attract top players and top managers. Times change, and just like the football world has left the likes of Galatasaray, Porto, Parma and AEK Athens behind, the same is true of the OF.

Porto won their group and are in the last 16 of the CL ffs. Is it because Rangers took 4 points out of 6 off them in the EL group stage 2 years ago that you think they're left behind? A shadow of the Team that won the CL in 2004, the last non big 5 league team to do so.

I don't think the Old Firm think they are any better than they are (some of the more deluded fans might). As I eluded to in my last post I actually think GVB thinks they are further behind than they actually are. Whether he trots out that line in the hope of the purse strings loosening I don't know but I think it had a detrimental effect on the squads psyche. The thing is the purse is relatively empty and the last thing they can afford to do is rack up big debt to gamble on making a decent challenge. So they have to go with what they have and drill them with self belief.
The old firm are strung by circumstance, in a way similar to Porto/Benfica and Ajax/PSV but much worse. Portugal and Holland are very firmly 6th & 7th behind the big 5 but even there their best teams can only mount limited challenges (which I suppose is what you were trying to say with Porto). There is nothing wrong or illogical with Scottish football trying to establish itself firmly in 8th place more permanently rather than just fleetingly. The other thing to say is, and you won't like it, is what enables the Dutch and Portuguese Coefficients to cement their places at 6th & 7th in the rankings is that they have Sporting Lisbon, Braga, Feyenoord etc outside the big 2 capable of boosting the countries coefficient. When did a non O/F team make a serious contribution to the Scottish coefficient? That's why Scotland cant maintain a decent ranking on a more permanent basis. Rangers have beat Porto, PSV & Braga (twice) in recent years, gone toe to toe with Benfica and matched them, in other words they've shown that for the most part (Ajax aside this season) Dutch teams & Portuguese teams aren't out of sight. However, where's the backup??

[super_realist]

You're quite right, Porto was a mistake to mention.

Yes, Rangers have beaten those teams you've mentioned, but the OF also been annihilated by other teams they consider beneath them so you have to take both into account.

For other teams not helping with the coefficient, we've already been through what the OF could do to help this.

[pedro]

You can argue that classy teams always find a way through. Yet this year the likes of Atletico, Barca and Juve are now out, and with some margin even.

Although you can't compare to club football directly, it's also worth mentioning that Italy failed to qualify for the last two world cups, yet won the last Euros. I'm sure had they qualified for this years world cup they would have been one of the favorites.

Hence, I wouldn't be surprised if Atletico, Barca or Juve did well in next years CL, just as Italy would do well next time they qualify for something.

Even for big teams there are ups and downs. But you need to qualify for the thing repeatedly to eventually get a chance to do well, and then learn from that going forward.

[JAS]

You can argue that classy teams always find a way through. Yet this year the likes of Atletico, Barca and Juve are now out, and with some margin even.

Although you can't compare to club football directly, it's also worth mentioning that Italy failed to qualify for the last two world cups, yet won the last Euros. I'm sure had they qualified for this years world cup they would have been one of the favorites.

Hence, I wouldn't be surprised if Atletico, Barca or Juve did well in next years CL, just as Italy would do well next time they qualify for something.

Even for big teams there are ups and downs. But you need to qualify for the thing repeatedly to eventually get a chance to do well, and then learn from that going forward.

In the case of Club football add "top level funded" between Classy and Teams in your first sentence and you're spot on.

Also bang on re Italy as well, It might be 30 or 40 years before North Macedonia have another campaign like the one that culminated in that play-off result but you can be pretty sure the Italians will be back at the top table before you can say spaghetti hoops.

Super almost has a point too re expectation of the Old Firm. It took Gerrard a couple of seasons to raise Rangers to being EL competitive, it will probably take GVB 2-3 seasons to get Rangers realistically any better than 4th in a CL group, I do still believe that a lucky draw could have gave them a shout but they didn't get it and that coupled with their injury crisis crippled them. Trouble is they were within a whisker of being Pot 3 seeds but now with only 6500 coefficient points this season they will likely drop back and be definite Pot4 fodder next year. Fine fine margins, Christ but for a feeble Aaron Ramsay penalty in May they could have been Pot 1 seeds kept some momentum by having a much better campaign, a 3rd place and an extended europa league run after xmas further bolstering their coefficient but that didn't happen. It's a MUCH MUCH longer road back now

[Duty281]

https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/0268-12157d69ce2d-9f011c70f6fa-1000--new-format-for-champions-league-post-2024-everything-you-need-t/

In a couple of seasons time the current Champions League format will be abolished and a new one will start. 36 teams in one single league (an upgrade on the current 32) and each team plays 10 8 matches (it was altered). Top 8 go through to the KO stages. Teams ranked 9th-24th go into a playoff round, the winners of which will go through to the KO stages. This change will be replicated in the other two UEFA club competitions.

Sounds like a convoluted mess of a system and very bloated in terms of the number of fixtures, but will it benefit the likes of Rangers and Celtic?

[super_realist]

Until Celtic and Rangers have billionaire owners willing to put in hundreds of millions every year they will remain small time.

At present they simply can't attract Champions League quality players as neither club pays much more than about 25k a week, which really is about average Championship level.

Why would anyone join either club for 6 Champions League hammerings when you could earn twice/three times as much in England and not have to play in terrible grounds like St Mirren or Ross County in front of just 10,000 fans? It's even worse when you've only qualified once in 5/10 years for the CL

Guys like Christie, Armstrong, Tierney, Patterson etc made good moves for their career whereas Tavernier, Jack, McGregor, Forrest have spunked their careers by stagnating in Scotland. The Celtic players in particular have shown a real lack of ambition given they've won all they can win up here several times.

[JAS]

Until Celtic and Rangers have billionaire owners willing to put in hundreds of millions every year they will remain small time.

At present they simply can't attract Champions League quality players as neither club pays much more than about 25k a week, which really is about  average Championship level.

Why would anyone join either club for 6 Champions League hammerings when you could earn twice/three times as much in England and not have to play in terrible grounds like St Mirren or Ross County in front of just 10,000 fans? It's even worse when you've only qualified once in 5/10 years for the CL

Guys like Christie, Armstrong, Tierney, Patterson etc made good moves for their career whereas Tavernier, Jack, McGregor, Forrest have spunked their careers by stagnating in Scotland. The Celtic players in particular have shown a real lack of ambition given they've won all they can win up here several times.

...and back round the loop we go again, it does not matter whether Rangers and Celtic have millions or billions, if they snuff out the competition in their own league then 4 competitive league fixtures a season isn't going to set them up for taking on Europes elite. What would really throw the cat among the pigeons is Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen etc getting billionaire owners.

earn twice/3 times as much...eh try 10 times

10000 fans? every ground is full and home games are 50000 for Rangers and 60000 for Celtic

I don't know how many times I have to correct you on every 5-10 years (unless you expect the Scottish league to start making a habit of demoting one of their cash cows to the bottom division every 10 years).  The Champions get group stage football every year (yes I know Celtic are usually quite anonymous in it and this is Rangers disastrous first year back in after rebuilding from their 4 year tour of the lower leagues). It's not until the Scottish coefficient drops below 10th that the Champs don't automatically get group stage participation... it was 9th before Rangers demotion, 23rd 5 seasons ago, 4 seasons worth of Rangers back in the game and it's back up to 8th - as I believe I said it would get to 3 seasons ago)...is your problem just lack of research, lack of comprehension, reluctance to accept the truth or something else?

Spunking away career? Tavernier has captained his club in a European final ffs, unless you believe he's good enough for a Top 6 club (if so who?) how else could he have done that? Plays every other week in front of the 4th? 5th? biggest crowd in Britain. Aye, spunked away what shocking choices he has made

[super_realist]

A Celtic or Rangers player isn't of the calibre that will get paid 10x more.

You keep reminding me of the Champions League but that is ONLY if the SPL retains its coefficient. It wasn't high enough until THIS year for direct entry and Celtic and Rangers showed clearly they weren't up to qualifying. Who knows if it will still be high enough the year after next, unlikely if the same happens again as did this year and no real reason to think it wouldn't. They're already in danger of being overtaken by two leagues.

Tavernier has had to put up with a turgid career for ONE final in the 2nd tier? Is that really what you build a career on.
Who would put up with rotten SPL football for multiple  years for that?

Why are McGregor and Tavernier not testing themselves at a higher level? It's comfort zone stuff. Lack of ambition. You won't improve if you don't test yourself at a higher level.

Staying in tje SPL is like staying on the DP Tour when you could try the PGA

[McLaren]

Staying in tje SPL is like staying on the DP Tour when you could try the PGA

Not sure that is a fair comparison. DP tour is like Serie A if the PGAT is the EPL. The SPL is like the tartan tour in this analogy.

[super_realist]

Don't agree, the DP tour is several rungs below the PGA
Serie A is much closer to the EPL by comparison. 20 years ago that would have been a decent description, but the DP Tour standard is awful now, some weeks you're lucky to get a top 100 player in it.

Tartan Tour is more like the Scottish Championship, full of teams/players that call themselves professional but really aren't , suppose SPL isn't that much better so you've got a point. I imagine many of us earn more than SPL players, so I have to question just how professional it actually is.

[McLaren]

Serie A is very poor.

[superflyweight]

Serie A is very poor.

It really isn't and only an idiot would suggest that it is (so I guess that explains your post).

Has consistently been the most entertaining league for the past 3 or 4 years and is much more open than the other big leagues. Napoli are the most exciting team to watch in the Europe at the moment (arguably taking that title from Atalanta) and Milan are a good young team playing fast attacking football. Over the last 2 years Serie A has overtaken the Bundesliga to become the most consistently entertaining league in Europe.

[McLaren]

Sorry I was just messing. It's just that it seems in every conversation comparing leagues these days there is a Serie A acolyte lurking. I loved Football Italia era Serie A as much as anyone but it's just fun to wind up the Serie A fans at the moment.

[super_realist]

Always found Italian football to be a bit dull. Very defensive for 90 minutes then Guoseppe Signori would score an overhead kick from the half way line

[JAS]

So the question is... Will neo-liberal Capitalism in it's current form survive the post pandemic, european war recession or has it now been exposed for what it is. Trickle up economics that benefits the few not the many, a system incapable of supporting the concept of a decent, solvent society when things start to get a little tricky?

[navyblueshorts]

So the question is... Will neo-liberal Capitalism in it's current form survive the post pandemic, european war recession or has it now been exposed for what it is. Trickle up economics that benefits the few not the many, a system incapable of supporting the concept of a decent, solvent society when things start to get a little tricky?

No; in a word. Too many that benefit from that are in the positions of power (i.e. the politicians) to make any realistic change.

[super_realist]

So the question is... Will neo-liberal Capitalism in it's current form survive the post pandemic, european war recession or has it now been exposed for what it is. Trickle up economics that benefits the few not the many, a system incapable of supporting the concept of a decent, solvent society when things start to get a little tricky?

Let's be sensible for a minute JAS,
Firstly the idiotic decisions on restrictions during Covid were also approved by Labour, and in some cases would have been harder and longer and as such would have run up at least the same level of cost and harm to the economy, secondly, Ukraine has nothing to do with who is in charge.

I'll agree that the issues they have done in regards to taxation haven't been good and demand criticism, but I don't see how the damage done due to lock down policy widely now seen as ridiculous or Ukraine would or could be any better under Labour when they were actually calling for deeper and longer restrictions.

Anyway, I'm leaving this sh!t country soon anyway, so I'm not too fussed.

[navyblueshorts]

So the question is... Will neo-liberal Capitalism in it's current form survive the post pandemic, european war recession or has it now been exposed for what it is. Trickle up economics that benefits the few not the many, a system incapable of supporting the concept of a decent, solvent society when things start to get a little tricky?

Let's be sensible for a minute JAS,
Firstly the idiotic decisions on restrictions during Covid were also approved by Labour, and in some cases would have been harder and longer and as such would have run up at least the same level of cost and harm to the economy, secondly, Ukraine has nothing to do with who is in charge.

I'll agree that the issues they have done in regards to taxation haven't been good and demand criticism, but I don't see how the damage done due to lock down policy widely now seen as ridiculous or Ukraine would or could be any better under Labour when they were actually calling for deeper and longer restrictions.

Anyway, I'm leaving this sh!t country soon anyway, so I'm not too fussed.

Re. the above highlighted text, this is just absurd and the result of 20:20 hindsight by people too thick to realise what Covid could have been. The lockdowns were not OTT; it's convenient for those who want to rail against them to say so, but that doesn't make those people either expert or correct.

This is a new human pathogen. We knew precisely nothing about it before early 2020. It was respiratory - the worst of the worst. The fact it didn't have the lethality of ebola, for example, while also being respiratory is a blessing.

Yes, the lockdowns caused a host of economic harm, but sitting here after the worst has passed and opining about how what was done was "ridiculous" is just that - ridiculous.

[super_realist]

Yes, they were ridiculous. Schools did not need to be closed. It was clearly not necessary to restrict people outside and arresting people for sitting outside on a bench or going for a walk was clearly absurd, it was clearly ridiculous to try and aim for Zero Covid as was attempted in Wales and Scotland and is STILL being attempted in China. The persistence of enforced masks, clearly made zero difference to infection rates evidenced by Wales and Scotland having HIGHER rates than England and especially when we weren't mandated to wear anything other than a toy face covering with zero efficacy to prevent spread of virus (even those blue masks weren't designed to reduce the spread of viruses)

Even the restrictions we had on golf courses was ludicrous as was closing tennis courts etc.

We also had too many lockdowns which had they been effective, would not have needed to be repeated. I'm actually glad politicians broke the rules, because we won't have such laughable restrictions applied again with any degree of authority

[JAS]

Yes, they were ridiculous. Schools did not need to be closed. It was clearly not necessary to restrict people outside and arresting people for sitting outside on a bench or going for a walk was clearly absurd, it was clearly ridiculous to try and aim for Zero Covid as was attempted in Wales and Scotland and is STILL being attempted in China. The persistence of enforced masks, clearly made zero difference to infection rates evidenced by Wales and Scotland having HIGHER rates than England and especially when we weren't mandated to wear anything other than a toy face covering with zero efficacy to prevent spread of virus (even those blue masks weren't designed to reduce the spread of viruses)

Even the restrictions we had on golf courses was ludicrous as was closing tennis courts etc.

We also had too many lockdowns which had they been effective, would not have needed to be repeated. I'm actually glad politicians broke the rules, because we won't have such laughable restrictions applied again with any degree of authority

Ain't hindsight wonderful. So seeing as you've applied yours I'll apply mine. Navy is bang on, in 2020 we knew pretty much diddly squat about what the virus could potentially do AND there was no vaccine. so the 2020 lockdowns were absolutely justified based on what was (not) known at the time. After the vaccines started to have an effect the case for the 3rd lockdown was much more debatable but it was just that...debatable. Trouble was with the shower of cheating, self centred, self interested fear mongering, incompetent nut jobs running the country there was NEVER going to be any rational debate was there?
Anyway raking over the Covid coals was not the intention for the original post. It was about on the news this morning "well run" Tory councils were queuing up to tell the country they're on the verge of bankruptcy. So lets assess where we are, Inflation is rampant, schools are out of money, the NHS is on it's knees, police forces are threadbare and now councils are out of money too.

Tories have been running the Country for 12 years ffs, so, including the Blair/Brown years we've now had over 40 years of neo-liberal macroeconomic policy. Some would say...good.. Clearly a welcome break from the "awful mess" of left of centre Social democracy that pervaded the 60s and 70s when living standards were rising and inequality was falling. Even better that we've replaced it with..."everyone for themselves, the market will sort it" philosophy. Oh really?? So the market has already had one Mulligan in 2008 which needed global state intervention to sort out. Effectively the top 1% were baled by the rest of us in 2008 so they could keep going and have continued to piss on the rest of us ever since, extracting fortunes out of the economy to stash away in tax havens and in conjunction with Oligrachs have distorted economies and bled nation states dry. Now throw in a pandemic and a rather awkward war and your average western economy cant cope and it will be the masses again that will have to pay for it. This is NOT a Tory vs Labour thing or a Republican v Democrat thing, it's a rail against individual, corporate and global corporate greed which all 4 of the aforementioned have at least at some point been complicit in facilitating and for now at least none seem to have the answer to. The only thing that is blindingly obvious is that the Tories want to persist with more of the same, we know that because they want us to blame everything on immigrants to conceal the fact that it's their mates who are shafting us and their rabid ideology is tempered only by the need to be re-electable at some point in the next 2 years. I don't think Labour know the answer either other than they know it cant be the status quo.

[JAS]

Yes, they were ridiculous. Schools did not need to be closed. It was clearly not necessary to restrict people outside and arresting people for sitting outside on a bench or going for a walk was clearly absurd, it was clearly ridiculous to try and aim for Zero Covid as was attempted in Wales and Scotland and is STILL being attempted in China. The persistence of enforced masks, clearly made zero difference to infection rates evidenced by Wales and Scotland having HIGHER rates than England and especially when we weren't mandated to wear anything other than a toy face covering with zero efficacy to prevent spread of virus (even those blue masks weren't designed to reduce the spread of viruses)

Even the restrictions we had on golf courses was ludicrous as was closing tennis courts etc.

We also had too many lockdowns which had they been effective, would not have needed to be repeated. I'm actually glad politicians broke the rules, because we won't have such laughable restrictions applied again with any degree of authority

Based on?? That it only affected kids relatively mildly...in most cases? Completely ignoring the fact that kids are super-spreaders? Given that there was already a shortage of teachers and TA's, how well do you think the education system (in bits as it is) would have recovered from a few hundred teachers having succumbed and died from Covid pre-vaccine??

[Duty281]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

[JAS]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Like I said hindsight is a wonderful thing. Obviously it would be much better if our leaders made the right calls at the right time. We can agree to disagree on the pre vaccine lockdowns. There is certainly a case for arguing against post vaccine lockdown which I can see now much more clearly than at the time and mostly for the reasons you mention.

Meanwhile, the war and sanctions against Russia and Russian oligarchs…have we got that right yet?

[navyblueshorts]

Yes, they were ridiculous. Schools did not need to be closed. It was clearly not necessary to restrict people outside and arresting people for sitting outside on a bench or going for a walk was clearly absurd, it was clearly ridiculous to try and aim for Zero Covid as was attempted in Wales and Scotland and is STILL being attempted in China. The persistence of enforced masks, clearly made zero difference to infection rates evidenced by Wales and Scotland having HIGHER rates than England and especially when we weren't mandated to wear anything other than a toy face covering with zero efficacy to prevent spread of virus (even those blue masks weren't designed to reduce the spread of viruses)

Even the restrictions we had on golf courses was ludicrous as was closing tennis courts etc.

We also had too many lockdowns which had they been effective, would not have needed to be repeated. I'm actually glad politicians broke the rules, because we won't have such laughable restrictions applied again with any degree of authority

#facepalm

[navyblueshorts]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Yeah. Based on f-all knowledge. You can't turn around now and say 'We was right!' on that basis and expect any praise I'm afraid.

You.Are.Missing.The.Point.

If the harms from lockdowns prove greater in the end, that still doesn't make you correct in your hindsight-based assertions. You're just wrong I'm afraid.

Thought experiment: New pathogen. Nothing known about its interaction with human biology or its pathology. Respiratory. All Governments think not worth trying to lockdown. Hundreds of millions die as direct result as it turns out mortality is ~50%. What do you think the retrospective reaction to the decision makers (and those like yourself) would have been in that situation?

[navyblueshorts]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Like I said hindsight is a wonderful thing. Obviously it would be much better if our leaders made the right calls at the right time. We can agree to disagree on the pre vaccine lockdowns. There is certainly a case for arguing against post vaccine lockdown which I can see now much more clearly than at the time and mostly for the reasons you mention.

Meanwhile, the war and sanctions against Russia and Russian oligarchs…have we got that right yet?

Even this is a debatable point, which I think was largely the right thing to have done. There's more than the pathology of known strains here. It was also about restricting (or trying to) viral development (i.e. generation of new, more pathogenic variants) while we as a species made some tools to help those infected etc.

Now we're clearer on biology of this thing etc and the fact that (touch wood) new variants appear to be more infectious but less harmful (on the whole), there's no talk of any further lockdowns. Except in China where Xi thinks his masculinity will be impacted if he allows a more lenient response.

[JAS]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Like I said hindsight is a wonderful thing. Obviously it would be much better if our leaders made the right calls at the right time. We can agree to disagree on the pre vaccine lockdowns. There is certainly a case for arguing against post vaccine lockdown which I can see now much more clearly than at the time and mostly for the reasons you mention.

Meanwhile, the war and sanctions against Russia and Russian oligarchs…have we got that right yet?

Even this is a debatable point, which I think was largely the right thing to have done. There's more than the pathology of known strains here. It was also about restricting (or trying to) viral development (i.e. generation of new, more pathogenic variants) while we as a species made some tools to help those infected etc.

Now we're clearer on biology of this thing etc and the fact that (touch wood) new variants appear to be more infectious but less harmful (on the whole), there's no talk of any further lockdowns. Except in China where Xi thinks his masculinity will be impacted if he allows a more lenient response.

I did say in a previous post that it was a debateable point Navy (which is usually what I say when I can see both sides).

Chipping in supporting your other points about lockdowns in the face of the unknown... Regarding the pre-vaccine landscape, it was very very clear that countries that adopted anti-lockdown strategies ran up the biggest bodycounts (Brazil & US - run at the time by Bolsonaro and Trump) I don't think that was a coincidence.

[Duty281]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Yeah. Based on f-all knowledge. You can't turn around now and say 'We was right!' on that basis and expect any praise I'm afraid.

You.Are.Missing.The.Point.

If the harms from lockdowns prove greater in the end, that still doesn't make you correct in your hindsight-based assertions. You're just wrong I'm afraid.

Thought experiment: New pathogen. Nothing known about its interaction with human biology or its pathology. Respiratory. All Governments think not worth trying to lockdown. Hundreds of millions die as direct result as it turns out mortality is ~50%. What do you think the retrospective reaction to the decision makers (and those like yourself) would have been in that situation?

No, it appears to be you that is missing the point.

These were not hindsight-based assertions, because they were asserted at the time by myself and a few others. I agree that some people are now pretending they didn't support lockdown at the time when they actually did, hence my comparison to the Iraq war and what people thought about that debacle.

And incorrect to say it was based on f-all knowledge. We knew very early on who was at risk from Covid and what the mortality rates were.

I don't wish to have praise, I just wish society learns from this mistake and never repeats it.

[navyblueshorts]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Yeah. Based on f-all knowledge. You can't turn around now and say 'We was right!' on that basis and expect any praise I'm afraid.

You.Are.Missing.The.Point.

If the harms from lockdowns prove greater in the end, that still doesn't make you correct in your hindsight-based assertions. You're just wrong I'm afraid.

Thought experiment: New pathogen. Nothing known about its interaction with human biology or its pathology. Respiratory. All Governments think not worth trying to lockdown. Hundreds of millions die as direct result as it turns out mortality is ~50%. What do you think the retrospective reaction to the decision makers (and those like yourself) would have been in that situation?

No, it appears to be you that is missing the point.

These were not hindsight-based assertions, because they were asserted at the time by myself and a few others. I agree that some people are now pretending they didn't support lockdown at the time when they actually did, hence my comparison to the Iraq war and what people thought about that debacle.

And incorrect to say it was based on f-all knowledge. We knew very early on who was at risk from Covid and what the mortality rates were.

I don't wish to have praise, I just wish society learns from this mistake and never repeats it.

The fact you were, arguably and in your mind, right (based on your's and other knowledge on this pathogen at the time i.e. nothing) is like the proverbial monkeys writing Shakespeare - give enough monkeys enough typewriters and time and they'll write Macbeth.

If two groups take either side of a two point argument (lockdown or not), one of them has to be right in the end. However, saying "I was right!" in hindsight is not evidence of knowledge or understanding of the problem.

The fact that you appear (not that you addressed my virtual proposal) willing to accept hundreds of millions of deaths (would you accept billions?) in this sort of situation just so you can go to the coffee shop, or whatever, is something you should perhaps reflect upon maybe.

There are no good decisions to be made with a pandemic, but morally I submit to you that you have to at least act like you want to prevent people from dying of an infection. You also, in absence of any actual facts, have to make assumptions that such a new pathogen might be lethal until you know otherwise.

Your position is untenable I'm afraid.

[superflyweight]

Ah c'mon, Navy! Duty was also right about Brexit all along - it's been an amazing success and the benefits are countless.

Believe in Duty!

[Soul Requiem]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Yeah. Based on f-all knowledge. You can't turn around now and say 'We was right!' on that basis and expect any praise I'm afraid.

You.Are.Missing.The.Point.

If the harms from lockdowns prove greater in the end, that still doesn't make you correct in your hindsight-based assertions. You're just wrong I'm afraid.

Thought experiment: New pathogen. Nothing known about its interaction with human biology or its pathology. Respiratory. All Governments think not worth trying to lockdown. Hundreds of millions die as direct result as it turns out mortality is ~50%. What do you think the retrospective reaction to the decision makers (and those like yourself) would have been in that situation?

No, it appears to be you that is missing the point.

These were not hindsight-based assertions, because they were asserted at the time by myself and a few others. I agree that some people are now pretending they didn't support lockdown at the time when they actually did, hence my comparison to the Iraq war and what people thought about that debacle.

And incorrect to say it was based on f-all knowledge. We knew very early on who was at risk from Covid and what the mortality rates were.

I don't wish to have praise, I just wish society learns from this mistake and never repeats it.

The fact you were, arguably and in your mind, right (based on your's and other knowledge on this pathogen at the time i.e. nothing) is like the proverbial monkeys writing Shakespeare - give enough monkeys enough typewriters and time and they'll write Macbeth.

If two groups take either side of a two point argument (lockdown or not), one of them has to be right in the end. However, saying "I was right!" in hindsight is not evidence of knowledge or understanding of the problem.

The fact that you appear (not that you addressed my virtual proposal) willing to accept hundreds of millions of deaths (would you accept billions?) in this sort of situation just so you can go to the coffee shop, or whatever, is something you should perhaps reflect upon maybe.

There are no good decisions to be made with a pandemic, but morally I submit to you that you have to at least act like you want to prevent people from dying of an infection. You also, in absence of any actual facts, have to make assumptions that such a new pathogen might be lethal until you know otherwise.

Your position is untenable I'm afraid.

Game, set and match.

Reminds me of David Brent and the hotel scenario.

[Duty281]

It wasn't hindsight, there were a few of us who said so at the time.

And, as those same few pointed out, the harm from lockdown will prove to be greater than the lives saved by lockdown. It's not just the severe economic harm - which will usher in another round of cuts to public services, lowering the standard of living; as well as the other effects such as small businesses being destroyed, rampant inflation, recession etc.  - but the other horrific effects.

Delays to diagnosis and/or treatment of life-threatening conditions which happened during lockdown, and are still happening now because of the NHS backlog, which means a rise in excess deaths; educational and psychological damage to children; the adverse effect on people's mental health, which may be difficult to calculate, and a rise in suicides.

It'll end up being like the Iraq war. Most people in the UK supported the Iraq war at the time, according to the polling; by the time the Iraq war was over, most people claimed to have been against it from the start, which was tosh. It'll be the same with lockdown. Most people supported it at the time; now that the horrendous human and economic costs have become readily apparent, in a few years time most people will say they never supported it.

Yeah. Based on f-all knowledge. You can't turn around now and say 'We was right!' on that basis and expect any praise I'm afraid.

You.Are.Missing.The.Point.

If the harms from lockdowns prove greater in the end, that still doesn't make you correct in your hindsight-based assertions. You're just wrong I'm afraid.

Thought experiment: New pathogen. Nothing known about its interaction with human biology or its pathology. Respiratory. All Governments think not worth trying to lockdown. Hundreds of millions die as direct result as it turns out mortality is ~50%. What do you think the retrospective reaction to the decision makers (and those like yourself) would have been in that situation?

No, it appears to be you that is missing the point.

These were not hindsight-based assertions, because they were asserted at the time by myself and a few others. I agree that some people are now pretending they didn't support lockdown at the time when they actually did, hence my comparison to the Iraq war and what people thought about that debacle.

And incorrect to say it was based on f-all knowledge. We knew very early on who was at risk from Covid and what the mortality rates were.

I don't wish to have praise, I just wish society learns from this mistake and never repeats it.

The fact you were, arguably and in your mind, right (based on your's and other knowledge on this pathogen at the time i.e. nothing) is like the proverbial monkeys writing Shakespeare - give enough monkeys enough typewriters and time and they'll write Macbeth.

If two groups take either side of a two point argument (lockdown or not), one of them has to be right in the end. However, saying "I was right!" in hindsight is not evidence of knowledge or understanding of the problem.

The fact that you appear (not that you addressed my virtual proposal) willing to accept hundreds of millions of deaths (would you accept billions?) in this sort of situation just so you can go to the coffee shop, or whatever, is something you should perhaps reflect upon maybe.

There are no good decisions to be made with a pandemic, but morally I submit to you that you have to at least act like you want to prevent people from dying of an infection. You also, in absence of any actual facts, have to make assumptions that such a new pathogen might be lethal until you know otherwise.

Your position is untenable I'm afraid.

Again, you're starting from a false premise. Knowledge of Covid was not nil at the time. It may have been for you, I'm not sure, but it wasn't for other people, so it's a continually false assertion.

Also again, you're belabouring the point of hindsight to the extent that I'm not sure you know what hindsight is, or if you've just failed to read what I've wrote twice, but I'll try again:

Hindsight is where someone says 'I've always known x would happen', but only after x became readily apparent. This is not the case here.

Some people, including myself, pointed out at the time (i.e. not after lockdown, but during and just before) that locking down in the manner we did was grossly disproportionate to the danger that Covid posed, and that the economic, psychological and health problems that would result, in the medium to long-term, would prove to be more harmful than Covid. This is now being borne out to be true, but it isn't hindsight to say 'I was right', because I said it before it became readily apparent. It is not hindsight; rather, the opposite, it was foresight.

I didn't address your virtual proposal because it has no comparison to Covid. By the time the UK chose to enter its first lockdown (March 2020), it was known that the mortality rate for under 50s was below 0.5%, so to put up an alternative scenario where the mortality rate is 100 times higher for that group obviously bears no relation to what is being discussed.

Your point about coffee shops and such is silly. I've posited the reasons for why I opposed lockdown, and they have nothing to do with a personal wish to attend coffee shops and the like, so this is just a lazy ad hominem.

Morally, there is a balance to be struck. But the material concerns are more important. And the actions of lockdown caused more harm than it saved us from, however morally noble lockdown may have appeared to some.

My position is not untenable, it is merely something you disagree with.

[Soul Requiem]

Dead family or lockdown?

Hmmm, it's a tough one.

[JAS]

I’ll assert again that the requirements for lockdowns before the vaccines became available and after we’re significantly different. Because Covid vaccines are now part and parcel of normal life like flu vaccines it kind of has the effect of squeezing the memory of what it was like between Feb 2020 and probably about Feb/Mar 2021. That initial period when some people were moaning about restricted freedoms while ambulances were queuing for hours outside hospitals was a frightening period for society as a whole.

Yes we could have gone Trumpian and just let it rip and blamed China, the result would have been a lot fewer Tory voting pensioners…would you have preferred that Duty?

[super_realist]

Dead family or lockdown?

Hmmm, it's a tough one.

Yeah, because that was the only option wasn't it?

Why did we follow a corrupt dictatorship response to it and not the WHO approved procedure?

[super_realist]

I’ll assert again that the requirements for lockdowns before the vaccines became available and after we’re significantly different. Because Covid vaccines are now part and parcel of normal life like flu vaccines it kind of has the effect of squeezing the memory of what it was like between Feb 2020 and probably about Feb/Mar 2021. That initial period when some people were moaning about restricted freedoms while ambulances were queuing for hours outside hospitals was a frightening period for society as a whole.

Yes we  could have gone Trumpian and just let it rip and blamed China, the result would have been a lot fewer Tory voting pensioners…would you have preferred that Duty?

The states had a federated response actually and weren't remotely dictated by Trump much as you'd like to blame him.

[Duty281]

Yes we  could have gone Trumpian and just let it rip and blamed China, the result would have been a lot fewer Tory voting pensioners…would you have preferred that Duty?

We're getting those extra deaths now, although very few seem to care. Only when it's Covid-related does the tea and sympathy arrive from the many.

It's not a case that lives were saved during lockdown and there was no trade-off. Instead, lives were saved and there is a significant trade-off which we are experiencing now, with a rise in excess deaths and the NHS struggling with demand, which is just part of it.

[navyblueshorts]

Yes we  could have gone Trumpian and just let it rip and blamed China, the result would have been a lot fewer Tory voting pensioners…would you have preferred that Duty?

We're getting those extra deaths now, although very few seem to care. Only when it's Covid-related does the tea and sympathy arrive from the many.

It's not a case that lives were saved during lockdown and there was no trade-off. Instead, lives were saved and there is a significant trade-off which we are experiencing now, with a rise in excess deaths and the NHS struggling with demand, which is just part of it.

Duh. Of course. There was always going to be a trade-off. As I said above, there were no good outcomes here.

You still haven't answered the thought experiment I posed to you, above. No rush...

[navyblueshorts]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

[super_realist]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

As for renowned experts, like communist behavioural scientists and Neil Ferguson who's never been right on anything?

Remember it was SAGE who told the UK government NOT to lock down earlier, but I distinctly recall people here criticising tje government for not doing that, so the likes of you go against these "renowned" experts too.

[JAS]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

As for renowned experts, like communist behavioural scientists and Neil Ferguson who's never been right on anything?

Remember it was SAGE who told the UK government NOT to lock down earlier, but I distinctly recall people here criticising tje government for not doing that, so the likes of you go against these "renowned" experts too.

...and you know fine well it's far more nuanced than that. There's renowned expert opinion which of course can sometimes be wrong as well as right but on the balance of probability is more more likely to be right more than it is wrong. Additionally there is then the timing of executing such advice, the comprehensiveness of implementing, the level of compliance etc. There were bloody loads of people out working & mixing when we were supposed to be locked down. the 2020 local elections were cancelled to prevent mixing, yet there were pics and vids that weekend of crowded tube platforms. It wasn't just a few rule breaking parties.

[McLaren]

Duty

When you were anti lockdown circa April 2020 was your reasoning based on scientific understanding or political ideology?

[McLaren]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

We are just giving opinion. Your opinions are just that, your opinion. No more or less informed than anyone else's.

That is a crazy statement. If memory serves me correctly Navy is a professional biological scientist.

[Duty281]

Yes we  could have gone Trumpian and just let it rip and blamed China, the result would have been a lot fewer Tory voting pensioners…would you have preferred that Duty?

We're getting those extra deaths now, although very few seem to care. Only when it's Covid-related does the tea and sympathy arrive from the many.

It's not a case that lives were saved during lockdown and there was no trade-off. Instead, lives were saved and there is a significant trade-off which we are experiencing now, with a rise in excess deaths and the NHS struggling with demand, which is just part of it.

Duh. Of course. There was always going to be a trade-off. As I said above, there were no good outcomes here.

You still haven't answered the thought experiment I posed to you, above. No rush...

As I've said your thought experiment has practically no relation to Covid, so I don't see the relevance.

[Duty281]

Gotta love it. Bunch of acknowledged experts advising UKG (and elsewhere) on a new human pathogen vs. bunch of signally unqualified noobs on an internet forum and the latter think they know/knew better.

This is a logical fallacy and carries the (quite typical) underlying assumption that all experts think as one, which they don't.

[Duty281]

Duty

When you were anti lockdown circa April 2020 was your reasoning based on scientific understanding or political ideology?

I don't see that my ideology has much to do with it. My opinion is primarily derived from the trade-offs posing greater harm than that which lockdown saved us from, although the swift curtailment of civil liberties and undermining of the democratic process was quite distressing.

[Sponsored content]