Don't worry about losing face

Things are starting to look bad in Wales with covid ,the numbers are rising fast,so I'd say this to the Welsh government this virus is so unpredictable,if we need a lockdown now just do it don't leave it to late no one wants to see people die ,we all have political opinions and argue,but at the end of the day don't hold off to save face ,it's a virus it unpredictable

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

There is so many contradictional messages coming from official sources what's true is anyones guess!
even covid figures widely fluctuating one day its 2 deaths 700 cases then its 31 deaths and over 2k cases !!

Fair enough just see how it pans out then.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Were you expecting the total number of deaths to decrease?

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

I think he is agreeing with you.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

If people aren’t seeing each other and sticking to that then of course lockdown works as a means of stopping the virus spreading. That’s a complete no brainer.

There’s always a lag though. We locked down end of March and deaths continued to rise well into May.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Were you expecting the total number of deaths to decrease?

no mate i was EXPECTING our figures to sky rocket, which they did mirroring the countries most like ourselves who had already locked down...and what all our medical and scientific experts who had been saying only a week earlier about confined indoors was far worse than bigger spaces or outdoors...which made sense and turned out to be bang on the money..
i do understand though that there was lots of public and media pressure to do something...and locking down...is something....
the comeback of course is how bad would it have been... well we are 5th in the world for deaths per 1mill population..how much worse could it have been ....

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

correct mate....they have been guessing, at no point have all the experts agreed and quite often contradicted what had been previously said... those are the true figures and if you look at Italy and Spain its exactly what happened when they locked down...

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

plenty of scientists have said that lockdowns do not work....if you look a bit further than whats spoon fed youll find a broad range of opinion... with some scientific bodies even having changed opinion.... and obvious to who ? ..bigger numbers means more mate.... would have been even bigger is sketchy at best... as there is NO country that both locked down and has done considerably better than ourselves....while there are loads whose restrictions were less draconic who faired better..?

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

plenty of scientists have said that lockdowns do not work....if you look a bit further than whats spoon fed youll find a broad range of opinion... with some scientific bodies even having changed opinion.... and obvious to who ? ..bigger numbers means more mate.... would have been even bigger is sketchy at best... as there is NO country that both locked down and has done considerably better than ourselves....while there are loads whose restrictions were less draconic who faired better..?

Sweden didn’t lock down but are struggling now per capita of population.

I don’t think any country was able to get it totally right.

Of course stopping the population from interacting reduced transmission and therefore deaths. As soon as restrictions were pulled then infection started spreading again.

Look at the frightening figures from America post thanksgiving. Could be us after Christmas.

I just do not understand the fear that is around. It's a virus, the chance of you getting it, and subsequently losing your life is minimal, actually, it's miniscure.

Where has this irrational fear come from? I just don't get it. Granted I am an eternal optimist, and granted I believe when your numbers up, it's up.

Would I walk in front of a bus.....no, there would be a good chance I didn't survive. But do I believe in what the various Governments are doing is right in any way....again NO. They have no clue how to control a nasty disease, but they do have a massive clue how to control the sheep.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

plenty of scientists have said that lockdowns do not work....if you look a bit further than whats spoon fed youll find a broad range of opinion... with some scientific bodies even having changed opinion.... and obvious to who ? ..bigger numbers means more mate.... would have been even bigger is sketchy at best... as there is NO country that both locked down and has done considerably better than ourselves....while there are loads whose restrictions were less draconic who faired better..?

Sweden didn’t lock down but are struggling now per capita of population.

I don’t think any country was able to get it totally right.

Of course stopping the population from interacting reduced transmission and therefore deaths. As soon as restrictions were pulled then infection started spreading again.

Look at the frightening figures from America post thanksgiving. Could be us after Christmas.

i didnt mention Sweden.... but their deaths per million people are 200 per mill less than ours over the pandemic...and much lower at present.... and yes thanksgiving ,like christmas ..mostly people confined in houses... mate if there was concrete evidence re lockdowns it would obviously be standard and worldwide... its not.. far from it... and there is no escaping the five worse hit counties were all amongst the countries that restricted the most....

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

plenty of scientists have said that lockdowns do not work....if you look a bit further than whats spoon fed youll find a broad range of opinion... with some scientific bodies even having changed opinion.... and obvious to who ? ..bigger numbers means more mate.... would have been even bigger is sketchy at best... as there is NO country that both locked down and has done considerably better than ourselves....while there are loads whose restrictions were less draconic who faired better..?

In what way do they not work? Do they not slow the virus down or am I missing something? The government handled this pandemic awfully by reacting late. We had it right in Wales with the two week firebreak but it should have been a month. The USA along with Brazil and other countries who didn't lockdown as much saw more deaths.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Were you expecting the total number of deaths to decrease?

no mate i was EXPECTING our figures to sky rocket, which they did mirroring the countries most like ourselves who had already locked down...and what all our medical and scientific experts who had been saying only a week earlier about confined indoors was far worse than bigger spaces or outdoors...which made sense and turned out to be bang on the money..
i do understand though that there was lots of public and media pressure to do something...and locking down...is something....
the comeback of course is how bad would it have been... well we are 5th in the world for deaths per 1mill population..how much worse could it have been ....

What lockdown did was made sure people who were Covid positive, whether they knew or not, would remain indoors. This obviously caused anyone else within the same residence to most likely also catch Covid. Of course our figures were going to skyrocket if you were locked into a house with someone Covid positive there was a good chance you'd also get it, but why would not locking down stop this in household spread? 1 infected person in a house of 5 is still going to be using the same taps, cutlery, door handles, cups, sofas, showers etc that are shared amongst the rest of the household regardless of whether they left the house to go to work, school, gym pub etc.

The way I understand it is there are 3 levels of transmission: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
Primary
People you have constant or prolonged contact with. Family and household members.

Secondary
People you spent significant time near or with. Neighbours, your friends, people you work with, etc

Tertiary
People you have brief contact with. Someone you pass in a shop, bar staff, bus drivers, checkout workers, etc

What the lockdown helped reduce was the Secondary and Tertiary transmissions. The rule of thumb is if you've got it, you can infect others for ~14 days which makes tackling Primary transmissions almost impossible as within 14 days of sharing a household with someone it's extremely likely you'll spread it regardless of the precautions you take.

If you actually take a look at the graphs below you can see that our first peak for our case numbers and deaths occurred roughly around 14 - 21 days after the lockdown came into effect on the 24th of March. If you assume for the first few days into lockdown you had people stockpiling from shops, collecting things from work, students travelling home etc and the fact that you can also pass on the virus for longer than 14 days in some cases then it's a sensible assumption to make that cases would rise as it circulates around infected households.
What we can see though is after the circulation around the infected houses is the case numbers and deaths dramatically decrease for several months, this is because in those houses that had been infected the virus had since died off with the majority of hosts unable to pass it on through Secondary and Tertiary transmissions.

I think it's a sensible assumption to make that the extreme majority of those that were infected or died from Covid in the first 3 weeks of lockdown would've either been infected or died regardless of the lockdown as they were already in extreme close proximity to an infected person in their household.
What the lockdown aimed to achieve was avoid uninfected households coming into contact with people from infected household.

These 2 graphs show the daily cases and deaths in the UK, the first red line is when the lockdown was announced and second red line is roughly 3 weeks later. The virus before the lockdown was on an upwards trend and then ~3 weeks later, once the household transmission cases have had time to recover and the virus has died off the cases and deaths start falling as the majority of people who are in contact with infected persons either already have it or have had it.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Were you expecting the total number of deaths to decrease?

no mate i was EXPECTING our figures to sky rocket, which they did mirroring the countries most like ourselves who had already locked down...and what all our medical and scientific experts who had been saying only a week earlier about confined indoors was far worse than bigger spaces or outdoors...which made sense and turned out to be bang on the money..
i do understand though that there was lots of public and media pressure to do something...and locking down...is something....
the comeback of course is how bad would it have been... well we are 5th in the world for deaths per 1mill population..how much worse could it have been ....

What lockdown did was made sure people who were Covid positive, whether they knew or not, would remain indoors. This obviously caused anyone else within the same residence to most likely also catch Covid. Of course our figures were going to skyrocket if you were locked into a house with someone Covid positive there was a good chance you'd also get it, but why would not locking down stop this in household spread? 1 infected person in a house of 5 is still going to be using the same taps, cutlery, door handles, cups, sofas, showers etc that are shared amongst the rest of the household regardless of whether they left the house to go to work, school, gym pub etc.

The way I understand it is there are 3 levels of transmission: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
Primary
People you have constant or prolonged contact with. Family and household members.

Secondary
People you spent significant time near or with. Neighbours, your friends, people you work with, etc

Tertiary
People you have brief contact with. Someone you pass in a shop, bar staff, bus drivers, checkout workers, etc

What the lockdown helped reduce was the Secondary and Tertiary transmissions. The rule of thumb is if you've got it, you can infect others for ~14 days which makes tackling Primary transmissions almost impossible as within 14 days of sharing a household with someone it's extremely likely you'll spread it regardless of the precautions you take.

If you actually take a look at the graphs below you can see that our first peak for our case numbers and deaths occurred roughly around 14 - 21 days after the lockdown came into effect on the 24th of March. If you assume for the first few days into lockdown you had people stockpiling from shops, collecting things from work, students travelling home etc and the fact that you can also pass on the virus for longer than 14 days in some cases then it's a sensible assumption to make that cases would rise as it circulates around infected households.
What we can see though is after the circulation around the infected houses is the case numbers and deaths dramatically decrease for several months, this is because in those houses that had been infected the virus had since died off with the majority of hosts unable to pass it on through Secondary and Tertiary transmissions.

I think it's a sensible assumption to make that the extreme majority of those that were infected or died from Covid in the first 3 weeks of lockdown would've either been infected or died regardless of the lockdown as they were already in extreme close proximity to an infected person in their household.
What the lockdown aimed to achieve was avoid uninfected households coming into contact with people from infected household.

These 2 graphs show the daily cases and deaths in the UK, the first red line is when the lockdown was announced and second red line is roughly 3 weeks later. The virus before the lockdown was on an upwards trend and then ~3 weeks later, once the household transmission cases have had time to recover and the virus has died off the cases and deaths start falling as the majority of people who are in contact with infected persons either already have it or have had it.

the graph.... shows almost exactly what i said...almost .because for some reason the red lines do not include where lockdown started..... and shops were not busy, far from it... not only that but at the start the amount allowed in shops was much lower than they are now and social distancing was being adhered to much better both inside and out in queues...
the graph mirrors other lockdown countries...does not mirror countries who went with lesser restrictions.. add to that the majority of deaths / infections were same household . ... but yes deaths decreased during the summer which is what all respiratory illnesses do... was predicted by...well everyone...
but if you think being 5th highest for deaths in the world is evidence of something working enough to think its a reasonable assumption it worked...carry on...

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Were you expecting the total number of deaths to decrease?

no mate i was EXPECTING our figures to sky rocket, which they did mirroring the countries most like ourselves who had already locked down...and what all our medical and scientific experts who had been saying only a week earlier about confined indoors was far worse than bigger spaces or outdoors...which made sense and turned out to be bang on the money..
i do understand though that there was lots of public and media pressure to do something...and locking down...is something....
the comeback of course is how bad would it have been... well we are 5th in the world for deaths per 1mill population..how much worse could it have been ....

What lockdown did was made sure people who were Covid positive, whether they knew or not, would remain indoors. This obviously caused anyone else within the same residence to most likely also catch Covid. Of course our figures were going to skyrocket if you were locked into a house with someone Covid positive there was a good chance you'd also get it, but why would not locking down stop this in household spread? 1 infected person in a house of 5 is still going to be using the same taps, cutlery, door handles, cups, sofas, showers etc that are shared amongst the rest of the household regardless of whether they left the house to go to work, school, gym pub etc.

The way I understand it is there are 3 levels of transmission: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
Primary
People you have constant or prolonged contact with. Family and household members.

Secondary
People you spent significant time near or with. Neighbours, your friends, people you work with, etc

Tertiary
People you have brief contact with. Someone you pass in a shop, bar staff, bus drivers, checkout workers, etc

What the lockdown helped reduce was the Secondary and Tertiary transmissions. The rule of thumb is if you've got it, you can infect others for ~14 days which makes tackling Primary transmissions almost impossible as within 14 days of sharing a household with someone it's extremely likely you'll spread it regardless of the precautions you take.

If you actually take a look at the graphs below you can see that our first peak for our case numbers and deaths occurred roughly around 14 - 21 days after the lockdown came into effect on the 24th of March. If you assume for the first few days into lockdown you had people stockpiling from shops, collecting things from work, students travelling home etc and the fact that you can also pass on the virus for longer than 14 days in some cases then it's a sensible assumption to make that cases would rise as it circulates around infected households.
What we can see though is after the circulation around the infected houses is the case numbers and deaths dramatically decrease for several months, this is because in those houses that had been infected the virus had since died off with the majority of hosts unable to pass it on through Secondary and Tertiary transmissions.

I think it's a sensible assumption to make that the extreme majority of those that were infected or died from Covid in the first 3 weeks of lockdown would've either been infected or died regardless of the lockdown as they were already in extreme close proximity to an infected person in their household.
What the lockdown aimed to achieve was avoid uninfected households coming into contact with people from infected household.

These 2 graphs show the daily cases and deaths in the UK, the first red line is when the lockdown was announced and second red line is roughly 3 weeks later. The virus before the lockdown was on an upwards trend and then ~3 weeks later, once the household transmission cases have had time to recover and the virus has died off the cases and deaths start falling as the majority of people who are in contact with infected persons either already have it or have had it.

the graph.... shows almost exactly what i said...almost .because for some reason the red lines do not include where lockdown started..... and shops were not busy, far from it... not only that but at the start the amount allowed in shops was much lower than they are now and social distancing was being adhered to much better both inside and out in queues...
the graph mirrors other lockdown countries...does not mirror countries who went with lesser restrictions.. add to that the majority of deaths / infections were same household . ... but yes deaths decreased during the summer which is what all respiratory illnesses do... was predicted by...well everyone...
but if you think being 5th highest for deaths in the world is evidence of something working enough to think its a reasonable assumption it worked...carry on...

The red lines are on the 24th of March, Boris Johnson's address to the nation about lockdown measures coming into force was 8.30pm on the 23rd of March.
Again, I agree that lockdown would cause almost all the cases to be spread throughout homes but if we hadn't locked down are you saying the virus wouldn't have been spread through homes?
You blame lockdown for the majority of cases but I want to know what you think would have happened if schools, offices, pubs, etc had remained open. The virus would've spread to many more households than without locking down.
The virus was on an exponentially growing curve before lockdown measures came into effect. That trend continued for approximately 2-3 weeks whilst the virus was active in households before cases and deaths started decreasing to very low levels due to the lack of interactions between people from separate houses.

As for being 5th in the world, is that not a representation of how poorly the entire pandemic has been handled in all aspects?
Look at Australia who had a much better enforced lockdown including much stronger measures at their borders, airports and ports. 3 deaths since October 28th and September 3rd was the last time they had more than 100 daily cases, recently they've been in the single digits.
The same can be said for New Zealand, they locked down including their borders and they've had a total of 2,088 cases and 25 deaths.
Compare Sweden who went against the lockdown strategy to their closest neighbours Norway and Finland:

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

If we hadn't locked down what do you think would've happened? How do you think our total case and deaths numbers would look? Do you think those that got infected in their homes in the first 3 weeks wouldn't have been infected? Why?
That's not being sarcastic, they're genuine questions. Personally with more people mingling and interacting I can't see any other outcome apart from a higher number of cases and a higher number of deaths.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Were you expecting the total number of deaths to decrease?

no mate i was EXPECTING our figures to sky rocket, which they did mirroring the countries most like ourselves who had already locked down...and what all our medical and scientific experts who had been saying only a week earlier about confined indoors was far worse than bigger spaces or outdoors...which made sense and turned out to be bang on the money..
i do understand though that there was lots of public and media pressure to do something...and locking down...is something....
the comeback of course is how bad would it have been... well we are 5th in the world for deaths per 1mill population..how much worse could it have been ....

What lockdown did was made sure people who were Covid positive, whether they knew or not, would remain indoors. This obviously caused anyone else within the same residence to most likely also catch Covid. Of course our figures were going to skyrocket if you were locked into a house with someone Covid positive there was a good chance you'd also get it, but why would not locking down stop this in household spread? 1 infected person in a house of 5 is still going to be using the same taps, cutlery, door handles, cups, sofas, showers etc that are shared amongst the rest of the household regardless of whether they left the house to go to work, school, gym pub etc.

The way I understand it is there are 3 levels of transmission: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
Primary
People you have constant or prolonged contact with. Family and household members.

Secondary
People you spent significant time near or with. Neighbours, your friends, people you work with, etc

Tertiary
People you have brief contact with. Someone you pass in a shop, bar staff, bus drivers, checkout workers, etc

What the lockdown helped reduce was the Secondary and Tertiary transmissions. The rule of thumb is if you've got it, you can infect others for ~14 days which makes tackling Primary transmissions almost impossible as within 14 days of sharing a household with someone it's extremely likely you'll spread it regardless of the precautions you take.

If you actually take a look at the graphs below you can see that our first peak for our case numbers and deaths occurred roughly around 14 - 21 days after the lockdown came into effect on the 24th of March. If you assume for the first few days into lockdown you had people stockpiling from shops, collecting things from work, students travelling home etc and the fact that you can also pass on the virus for longer than 14 days in some cases then it's a sensible assumption to make that cases would rise as it circulates around infected households.
What we can see though is after the circulation around the infected houses is the case numbers and deaths dramatically decrease for several months, this is because in those houses that had been infected the virus had since died off with the majority of hosts unable to pass it on through Secondary and Tertiary transmissions.

I think it's a sensible assumption to make that the extreme majority of those that were infected or died from Covid in the first 3 weeks of lockdown would've either been infected or died regardless of the lockdown as they were already in extreme close proximity to an infected person in their household.
What the lockdown aimed to achieve was avoid uninfected households coming into contact with people from infected household.

These 2 graphs show the daily cases and deaths in the UK, the first red line is when the lockdown was announced and second red line is roughly 3 weeks later. The virus before the lockdown was on an upwards trend and then ~3 weeks later, once the household transmission cases have had time to recover and the virus has died off the cases and deaths start falling as the majority of people who are in contact with infected persons either already have it or have had it.

the graph.... shows almost exactly what i said...almost .because for some reason the red lines do not include where lockdown started..... and shops were not busy, far from it... not only that but at the start the amount allowed in shops was much lower than they are now and social distancing was being adhered to much better both inside and out in queues...
the graph mirrors other lockdown countries...does not mirror countries who went with lesser restrictions.. add to that the majority of deaths / infections were same household . ... but yes deaths decreased during the summer which is what all respiratory illnesses do... was predicted by...well everyone...
but if you think being 5th highest for deaths in the world is evidence of something working enough to think its a reasonable assumption it worked...carry on...

The red lines are on the 24th of March, Boris Johnson's address to the nation about lockdown measures coming into force was 8.30pm on the 23rd of March.
Again, I agree that lockdown would cause almost all the cases to be spread throughout homes but if we hadn't locked down are you saying the virus wouldn't have been spread through homes?
You blame lockdown for the majority of cases but I want to know what you think would have happened if schools, offices, pubs, etc had remained open. The virus would've spread to many more households than without locking down.
The virus was on an exponentially growing curve before lockdown measures came into effect. That trend continued for approximately 2-3 weeks whilst the virus was active in households before cases and deaths started decreasing to very low levels due to the lack of interactions between people from separate houses.

As for being 5th in the world, is that not a representation of how poorly the entire pandemic has been handled in all aspects?
Look at Australia who had a much better enforced lockdown including much stronger measures at their borders, airports and ports. 3 deaths since October 28th and September 3rd was the last time they had more than 100 daily cases, recently they've been in the single digits.
The same can be said for New Zealand, they locked down including their borders and they've had a total of 2,088 cases and 25 deaths.
Compare Sweden who went against the lockdown strategy to their closest neighbours Norway and Finland:

Cases per 100k
Sweden - 2,383
Norway - 641
Finland - 436

Deaths per 100k
Sweden - 64.83
Norway - 5.93
Finland - 7.03

If we hadn't locked down what do you think would've happened? How do you think our total case and deaths numbers would look? Do you think those that got infected in their homes in the first 3 weeks wouldn't have been infected? Why?
That's not being sarcastic, they're genuine questions. Personally with more people mingling and interacting I can't see any other outcome apart from a higher number of cases and a higher number of deaths.

worse case scenario same deaths..{ i really cant see where it could be much worse as nobody who had lesser restictions have higher death rates } . but with far less avoidable non covid deaths both at the time and in the pipeline and less damage to the economy...... ..if your at home 24//7 your touching absolutely everything... as is everyone else in that house. therefore the chances of anyone older and weaker catching it are increased.. its what did happen ..you cant hide from that.. there was even a point you could have a garden party but not allow anyone to go to a toilet...... if younger members are in and out the incidences of touching things and therefore transmitting decreases massively...Sweden...have done better than ourselves ... Belgium on the other hand have done far worse than neighbouring germany and netherlands and ourselves despite being locked down hard... as for australia its an island the other side of the world...?
and no the gap between tthose dates is not representative... but eh oh it shows the sky rocketing which 100% happened here and many others that locked down... coincidence maybe that only locked down countries had these enormous almost identical spikes... ?

The USA along with Brazil and other countries who didn't lockdown as much saw more deaths.

Can't look at the US as a whole as there are too many different approaches across the differing States. If you look at it on the state level if anything the US is a good example of how lockdowns have had a negative impact.

California, New York, New Jersey, had some of the severest lockdowns in the States and higher rates of death.

Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas had little or no lockdowns and had very few deaths.

I don't much about Brazil but I would imagine that the virus would have spread like wildfire in the favelas of Rio and Sao Paolo where there are millions of people living on top of each other with poor sanitation.

The USA along with Brazil and other countries who didn't lockdown as much saw more deaths.

Can't look at the US as a whole as there are too many different approaches across the differing States. If you look at it on the state level if anything the US is a good example of how lockdowns have had a negative impact.

California, New York, New Jersey, had some of the severest lockdowns in the States and higher rates of death.

Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas had little or no lockdowns and had very few deaths.

I don't much about Brazil but I would imagine that the virus would have spread like wildfire in the favelas of Rio and Sao Paolo where there are millions of people living on top of each other with poor sanitation.

Like you've mentioned with the favelas in Brazil having lots of people living on top of eachother, the same can be said for the 3 states you've mentioned as having high death rates despite severe lockdowns.

No of people per square mile:
California - 253.9
New York - 416.4
New Jersey - 1,211.3

Utah - 36.5
Idaho - 19.8
Montana - 7.0
Nebraska - 24.9
North Dakota - 10.5
South Dakota - 11.3

When you compare the largest city as well in each state:
California, LA - 7,544.6
New York, NYC - 27,016.3
New Jersey, Newark - 11,458.3

Utah, Salt Lake City - 1,934.3
Idaho, Boise - 2,803
Montana, Billings - 2,399.7
Nebraska, Omaha - 3,217.9
North Dakota, Fargo - 2,388.2
South Dakota, Sioux Falls - 2,109

So in terms of statewide population density the range goes from 7x denser to 173x denser.
And in terms of most populous cities density the range goes from 2.3x denser to 14x denser.

Also bear in mind NYC is a major transport hub for flights from Europe and LA is a large hub for Asia and Oceania, both would've most likely had cases weeks before the other states did and would've had cases much longer before lockdowns were initiated compared to cities such as Fargo, Sioux Falls, Boise, etc I would guess that the exponential growth of the virus in these cities was already much higher up the curve meaning by the time lockdown was initiated they were already at a significant disadvantage to the less denser cities that are all in states that have much less international travel in.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

plenty of scientists have said that lockdowns do not work....if you look a bit further than whats spoon fed youll find a broad range of opinion... with some scientific bodies even having changed opinion.... and obvious to who ? ..bigger numbers means more mate.... would have been even bigger is sketchy at best... as there is NO country that both locked down and has done considerably better than ourselves....while there are loads whose restrictions were less draconic who faired better..?

In what way do they not work? Do they not slow the virus down or am I missing something? The government handled this pandemic awfully by reacting late. We had it right in Wales with the two week firebreak but it should have been a month. The USA along with Brazil and other countries who didn't lockdown as much saw more deaths.

no mate the USA and Brazil are vastly bigger than the UK and have lower deaths per million than us...
as for too late...how ? where exactly is there evidence of this... people dying in corridors in Italian hospitals ? care homes being abandoned with the residents who were still alive left to fend for themselves in Spain ... where ?

The USA along with Brazil and other countries who didn't lockdown as much saw more deaths.

Can't look at the US as a whole as there are too many different approaches across the differing States. If you look at it on the state level if anything the US is a good example of how lockdowns have had a negative impact.

California, New York, New Jersey, had some of the severest lockdowns in the States and higher rates of death.

Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas had little or no lockdowns and had very few deaths.

I don't much about Brazil but I would imagine that the virus would have spread like wildfire in the favelas of Rio and Sao Paolo where there are millions of people living on top of each other with poor sanitation.

Like you've mentioned with the favelas in Brazil having lots of people living on top of eachother, the same can be said for the 3 states you've mentioned as having high death rates despite severe lockdowns.

No of people per square mile:
California - 253.9
New York - 416.4
New Jersey - 1,211.3

Utah - 36.5
Idaho - 19.8
Montana - 7.0
Nebraska - 24.9
North Dakota - 10.5
South Dakota - 11.3

When you compare the largest city as well in each state:
California, LA - 7,544.6
New York, NYC - 27,016.3
New Jersey, Newark - 11,458.3

Utah, Salt Lake City - 1,934.3
Idaho, Boise - 2,803
Montana, Billings - 2,399.7
Nebraska, Omaha - 3,217.9
North Dakota, Fargo - 2,388.2
South Dakota, Sioux Falls - 2,109

So in terms of statewide population density the range goes from 7x denser to 173x denser.
And in terms of most populous cities density the range goes from 2.3x denser to 14x denser.

Also bear in mind NYC is a major transport hub for flights from Europe and LA is a large hub for Asia and Oceania, both would've most likely had cases weeks before the other states did and would've had cases much longer before lockdowns were initiated compared to cities such as Fargo, Sioux Falls, Boise, etc I would guess that the exponential growth of the virus in these cities was already much higher up the curve meaning by the time lockdown was initiated they were already at a significant disadvantage to the less denser cities that are all in states that have much less international travel in.

I agree, the point i take is that there are more variables than the simple lockdown good or bad and country by country comparisons are largely meaningless as there are too many variables to factor in for relative comparisons.

The data on the success of lockdown strategies against the virulence of Covid is hard if not impossible to equate currently and may never be possible because there is no universal standard in what constitutes a COVID death.

But it is inaccurate to state the US had less lockdown and greater deaths as there is so much variance on approach from State to State.

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Were you expecting the total number of deaths to decrease?

no mate i was EXPECTING our figures to sky rocket, which they did mirroring the countries most like ourselves who had already locked down...and what all our medical and scientific experts who had been saying only a week earlier about confined indoors was far worse than bigger spaces or outdoors...which made sense and turned out to be bang on the money..
i do understand though that there was lots of public and media pressure to do something...and locking down...is something....
the comeback of course is how bad would it have been... well we are 5th in the world for deaths per 1mill population..how much worse could it have been ....

What lockdown did was made sure people who were Covid positive, whether they knew or not, would remain indoors. This obviously caused anyone else within the same residence to most likely also catch Covid. Of course our figures were going to skyrocket if you were locked into a house with someone Covid positive there was a good chance you'd also get it, but why would not locking down stop this in household spread? 1 infected person in a house of 5 is still going to be using the same taps, cutlery, door handles, cups, sofas, showers etc that are shared amongst the rest of the household regardless of whether they left the house to go to work, school, gym pub etc.

The way I understand it is there are 3 levels of transmission: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
Primary
People you have constant or prolonged contact with. Family and household members.

Secondary
People you spent significant time near or with. Neighbours, your friends, people you work with, etc

Tertiary
People you have brief contact with. Someone you pass in a shop, bar staff, bus drivers, checkout workers, etc

What the lockdown helped reduce was the Secondary and Tertiary transmissions. The rule of thumb is if you've got it, you can infect others for ~14 days which makes tackling Primary transmissions almost impossible as within 14 days of sharing a household with someone it's extremely likely you'll spread it regardless of the precautions you take.

If you actually take a look at the graphs below you can see that our first peak for our case numbers and deaths occurred roughly around 14 - 21 days after the lockdown came into effect on the 24th of March. If you assume for the first few days into lockdown you had people stockpiling from shops, collecting things from work, students travelling home etc and the fact that you can also pass on the virus for longer than 14 days in some cases then it's a sensible assumption to make that cases would rise as it circulates around infected households.
What we can see though is after the circulation around the infected houses is the case numbers and deaths dramatically decrease for several months, this is because in those houses that had been infected the virus had since died off with the majority of hosts unable to pass it on through Secondary and Tertiary transmissions.

I think it's a sensible assumption to make that the extreme majority of those that were infected or died from Covid in the first 3 weeks of lockdown would've either been infected or died regardless of the lockdown as they were already in extreme close proximity to an infected person in their household.
What the lockdown aimed to achieve was avoid uninfected households coming into contact with people from infected household.

These 2 graphs show the daily cases and deaths in the UK, the first red line is when the lockdown was announced and second red line is roughly 3 weeks later. The virus before the lockdown was on an upwards trend and then ~3 weeks later, once the household transmission cases have had time to recover and the virus has died off the cases and deaths start falling as the majority of people who are in contact with infected persons either already have it or have had it.

Excellent analysis of the mechanics and benefits of a lockdown. Perhaps even those who knock government lockdown strategies because they can't get to the pub will now see the sense in stocking the fridge in readiness for one post Xmas!

But where is the solid evidence that a lock down actually works?

You sound scared. I would suggest laying off the news for a while and getting on with your life without it.

no there is no evidence... unless you call turning a total of 331 covid deaths pre lockdown into 39,981 deaths by the time it was eased 3 months later evidence of working....

Come on mate do you think you can throw a few basic stats up and that's it? There are so many variables even some of the worlds top scientists can barely work out what's making a difference.

Scientists have never said lockdowns don't work? They've said that they don't stop the virus altogether but it's obvious that that they definitely slow the cases down. The reason the hospitals are quiet is because we have kept them quiet... but still unfortunately people have sadly lost their lives.

plenty of scientists have said that lockdowns do not work....if you look a bit further than whats spoon fed youll find a broad range of opinion... with some scientific bodies even having changed opinion.... and obvious to who ? ..bigger numbers means more mate.... would have been even bigger is sketchy at best... as there is NO country that both locked down and has done considerably better than ourselves....while there are loads whose restrictions were less draconic who faired better..?

Sweden didn’t lock down but are struggling now per capita of population.

I don’t think any country was able to get it totally right.

Of course stopping the population from interacting reduced transmission and therefore deaths. As soon as restrictions were pulled then infection started spreading again.

Look at the frightening figures from America post thanksgiving. Could be us after Christmas.

i didnt mention Sweden.... but their deaths per million people are 200 per mill less than ours over the pandemic...and much lower at present.... and yes thanksgiving ,like christmas ..mostly people confined in houses... mate if there was concrete evidence re lockdowns it would obviously be standard and worldwide... its not.. far from it... and there is no escaping the five worse hit counties were all amongst the countries that restricted the most....

New Zealand locked down instantly on the first wave and the results were almost 100%