Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[servodude]

I don't see any of the "straw man" you are referring to?

Let's be clear what we would be talking about:
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/straw-man-fallacy-examples.html

The basic structure of the argument consists of Person A making a claim, Person B creating a distorted version of the claim (the “straw man”), and then Person B attacking this distorted version in order to refute Person A's original assertion

and how might that look when considering the risks of a respiratory disease?
well you could start with:

Before Covid existed you could go out and be met by strangers with a knife.

- that's choosing a grossly unrepresentative example of something to compare
knifes are not an infectious disease
- they're nasty I'll give you that but when I was stabbed (because of the school uniform I was wearing) I knew about it and didn't take it home to infect my family

so lets see if we can find data that might be an apples for apples comparison...

would we accept the ONS?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26

within there you'll find

(a) a good read about how COVID compares to other disease

(b) this image comparing the deaths from covid with the deaths from infectious disease in England going back to the turn of the 20th century


- and remember that's with the response undertaken in England

I'm going to suggest that a quicker response would have made that spike smaller
- that's based that on the data I've seen, and experience, from places that did not prevaricate

now you might be of the opinion that that spike would have happened at that height anyway
- or that the efforts undertaken have not suppressed it to any degree
- and to be honest if that's the case I can't really help you there (other than perhaps refer you to Arkell vs Pressdram? )

Yes there are risks involved in everything
- but grossly distorting and underplaying the risks of this virus has already killed 150k in the UK
- isn't it time that stopped?

Skål
- sd

EDIT: for minor formatting

[dealtn]

now you might be of the opinion that that spike would have happened at that height anyway
- or that the efforts undertaken have not suppressed it to any degree
- and to be honest if that's the case I can't really help you there (other than perhaps refer you to Arkell vs Pressdram? )

Yes there are risks involved in everything
- but grossly distorting and underplaying the risks of this virus has already killed 150k in the UK
- isn't it time that stopped?

But what you are missing, and why I don't think this is a "straw man" exaggeration is that you are referring to the past 12 months, whilst the argument was about looking forward, and what the appropriate response (it was described from recall as "meaningful action") should be.

I am not refuting the evidence the Covid pandemic has been responsible for multi-thousands of deaths, and infectious etc. Few I would hope are taking an opposing view.

The argument was put that the authorities will need to take meaningful action, and that prevarications (as might be argued has happened in the past), would be (another) disastrous response. But the world has changed. The (adult) population will soon be (nearly all) vaccinated, as such the potential for that significant spike in your graph recurring is hugely reduced. (Treatments have also improved).

So if we were making arguments about whether Covid was deadly, the policy response was inaccurate, whether individual decisions led to worse outcomes, then of course what you show is relevant. But to argue as you do, about a future scenario with a vaccination regime sufficiently large to reduce the infectious capability, and the mortality outcomes, such that whilst Covid might exist, it doesn't pose the risk of those exponential growth spikes, is not a correct way of comparing history with the future. It might be called a straw man even.

When conditions change, government's response change, as do laws set by them. Some will be repealed and replaced as unnecessary. Men with red flags no longer walk in font of cars. Lights are allowed on at night time, and wartime blackouts have gone. It will be the same with Covid. Once the risks posed by Covid are recognised to have fallen significantly, lockdowns will be history too. Mask wearing might go the same way. The fact that some might choose not to be vaccinated (refusenik was the term used) doesn't automatically change that. How could it? Would a single refusenik be sufficient to stop it? Two? Ten?

Further, any individual not comfortable with the response of government, seeking even greater safety, can take individual additional measures to those imposed by the authorities towards achieving such. Just like not taking public transport for those unhappy with the risk of accidents etc. Just the same as was possible over the last century or so.

The meaningful action of Government will be to ensure society is safe, and economically active again, for the benefit of society. Not radically different objectives than at any point in the Covid pandemic, or indeed history. What will have changed is what Covid in society means with a vaccinated population. To argue vaccination won't change things is bizarre.

[88V8]

To argue vaccination won't change things is bizarre.

Yes, it is.

What bothers those who are and will remain bothered though is that most risks one can see and avoid - cars, knives to a degree - but one cannot 'see' a refusenik.

Hopefully the vaccine passports will largely erase the resufeniks, especially if events begin demanding them.

If one is concerned about refuseniks, write to your MP insisting on passports, and organisations' unfettered right to demand them.

V8

[dealtn]

To argue vaccination won't change things is bizarre.

Yes, it is.

How does that work then? Despite vaccination there will be the same amount of transmission? The vaccines don't work? All the evidence about efficacy is wrong?

Things will change, and indeed already have changed.

[88V8]

To argue vaccination won't change things is bizarre.

Yes, it is.

How does that work then? Despite vaccination there will be the same amount of transmission? The vaccines don't work? All the evidence about efficacy is wrong?
Things will change, and indeed already have changed.

Yes, which is why it's bizarre to argue otherwise.
Can you think of a reason?

V8

[Mike4]

To argue vaccination won't change things is bizarre.

Yes, it is.

How does that work then? Despite vaccination there will be the same amount of transmission? The vaccines don't work? All the evidence about efficacy is wrong?

Things will change, and indeed already have changed.

How do you see things panning out? I don't think the vaccines working or not is a binary thing.

ISTR arguments on here before johnhemming left about "herd immunity" and the thresholds of such. These revolved around "HIT", herd immunity threshold, and how the virus would spontaneously die out once a high enough proportion of the population had developed 'immunity from being infected or vaccinated. And below HIT that it would continue to circulate. General opinion seemed to settle on HIT being around 80% of the population.

Seems to me that until we get into HIT territory there will still be virus transmission. I think from the combative tone of your posts on this you think otherwise and transmission is petering out already, or will do soon now we have approx one third of the population vaccinated. Is that right? Do you subscribe to the "herd immunity" idea?

[dealtn]

Yes, it is.

How does that work then? Despite vaccination there will be the same amount of transmission? The vaccines don't work? All the evidence about efficacy is wrong?

Things will change, and indeed already have changed.

How do you see things panning out? I don't think the vaccines working or not is a binary thing.

ISTR arguments on here before johnhemming left about "herd immunity" and the thresholds of such. These revolved around "HIT", herd immunity threshold, and how the virus would spontaneously die out once a high enough proportion of the population had developed 'immunity from being infected or vaccinated. And below HIT that it would continue to circulate. General opinion seemed to settle on HIT being around 80% of the population.

Seems to me that until we get into HIT territory there will still be virus transmission. I think from the combative tone of your posts on this you think otherwise and transmission is petering out already, or will do soon now we have approx one third of the population vaccinated. Is that right? Do you subscribe to the "herd immunity" idea?

Transmission is non-linear. It requires an infected person to meet an uninfected, unvaccinated person (and pass it on), and then they pass it on in a similar way to another uninfected, unvaccinated person etc.

So with, say 80% available in a population yet to either have it or be vaccinated, your chances if infected of giving it to the next person you meet is 80%. So you have a mathematical equation 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 etc. (It's much more complicated as just meeting someone isn't enough to pass it on).

Compare that with 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7, then 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 etc. The outputs of such models show dramatic changes to the speed and magnitude of the spread of a pandemic.

So in answer to your question, I do subscribe to a "herd immunity" theory - not particularly controversial, I am in line with mainstream immunologists here. The transmission is already reducing (which has also been assisted by reduced interactions through lockdown measures). Until you, or someone else, defines "petering out" that's not something I can answer.

Yet again though, you are describing a situation that isn't in the future, which was the case when my arrival in this discussion took place. SD was referring to the past, you are referring to now. I was responding to the future when all adults have been offered the vaccine, but there would remain an imperfect coverage as there would be some refuseniks. To date take up across the offered groups is 90% or so (and some of those 10% remaining might have good reasons not to have been vaccinated so far, and might not be "refuseniks").

At the point that 90% of the adult population have been vaccinated, I don't think the 10% that haven't will be sufficient in themselves to mean a Government will require to re-impose the kind of "meaningful actions" we have had in the past. Do I think it likely, or right, that the authorities close the book on it, no longer care, stop monitoring, stop ordering medical resource to deal with it etc.? No.

[servodude]

SD was referring to the past,

SD was just pointing out the use of knives as a straw man because someone was claiming not to see straw men

The other stuff was just a recap of what happens when folk conflate concepts incorrectly

-sd

[dealtn]

SD was referring to the past,

SD was just pointing out the use of knives as a straw man because someone was claiming not to see straw men

The other stuff was just a recap of what happens when folk conflate concepts incorrectly

-sd

If you like.

My argument was that there are small risks, have always been small risks, and will likely also be small risks in the future.

Occasionally there are bigger risks (such as Covid is now, and has been over the last 12 months).

Governments adapt the necessary responses as they change, as they have demonstrated over the last 12 months.

Once risks are small again, and unlikely to become big ones again, those responses change again. It isn't necessary for those responses to remain elevated, or be reinstated at elevated levels (unless risks demonstratively rise again).

None of that is a straw man.

Risk of knife crime hasn't meaningfully changed over the time of your graph to the extent of the spike you show. Government responses to knife crime won't have escalated to the point of introducing a lockdown, nor likely too going forward. Similarly when Covid outcomes fall to a similarly low risk again, and don't look likely to ever return to the point where emergency measures are required, those emergency measures will disaappear, and unlikley to come back. The response of the government will be, and should be, broadly the same across all such low risk event, be that knife crime, Covid pandemic, or numerous other individual, and societal low risk categories.

Yes Knifes are different to viruses, but that in itself doesn't make it a strawman. The argument I am making is about government responses to low risk events across society, and what individuals can do if they, as individuals, don't think the government responses to protect society are sufficient for their own individual risk profile.

If I was making a claim that knife attacks demonstrated significant "infectious" copy cat knife responses, similar to a viral epidemic with an R rate elevated above 1, then fine, ask me to provide such evidence which if couldn't be produced then there is merit on a strawman non-equivalence response. But those aren't claims I have made, or will make.

Your graph, backward looking, and commentary mainly in the past tense, does little to counter my view on what the risk profile of Covid looks like going forward, and the likely authority response to that risk profile. If you could argue or demonstrate such "spikes" recurring, frequently, with similar magnitude etc. then a genuine debate about future Government responses could ensue. But you didn't. Nor has anyone else yet (perhaps it has taken place on the Covid Modelling Board).

If you or anyone wants to debate the statistics in the past, then I am happy to join in. I doubt there will be much of a difference, as most will have general agreement around those facts. Arguments will likely be on what the responses were, or should have been etc. but I am less likely to enter those discussions as I don't see them as being particularly useful.

If you, or anyone, wishes to discuss the likely future then again that discussion is one I will engage in. I will likely learn something from it.

However there seems little point in using the past as a means of discussing the future unless there is some predictive quality about the past being relevant. There will be elements of that, of course, but when the future path is hugely influenced by the arrival of a vaccination programme, that is absent from the past, it shouldn't be a surprise that many will see the future and past being significantly different.

[Nimrod103]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... ives-cost/


Delaying the first lockdown may have saved more lives than it cost

A Cambridge expert argues that countries who locked down early just delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality


Dr Raghib Ali, a senior clinical research associate at the university’s MRC Epidemiology Unit, said Britain’s relatively late lockdown meant more people were infected in the spring, when underlying pressure on the NHS was relatively light, meaning they were protected by antibodies come winter, when the service traditionally struggles to cope. He said in the absence of a vaccine, lockdowns postpone infections, rather than prevent them, and suggests that March and April was a better period in which to catch the virus.

Many of the claims that Britain’s late lockdown exacerbated the death toll have been made using the statistical models that urged the measure in the first place. By contrast, Dr Ali compared the UK to European countries with similar populations, age structures, seasons and healthcare systems.

[servodude]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/21/delaying-first-lockdown-may-have-inadvertently-saved-lives-cost/


Delaying the first lockdown may have saved more lives than it cost

A Cambridge expert argues that countries who locked down early just delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality


Dr Raghib Ali, a senior clinical research associate at the university’s MRC Epidemiology Unit, said Britain’s relatively late lockdown meant more people were infected in the spring, when underlying pressure on the NHS was relatively light, meaning they were protected by antibodies come winter, when the service traditionally struggles to cope. He said in the absence of a vaccine, lockdowns postpone infections, rather than prevent them, and suggests that March and April was a better period in which to catch the virus.

Many of the claims that Britain’s late lockdown exacerbated the death toll have been made using the statistical models that urged the measure in the first place. By contrast, Dr Ali compared the UK to European countries with similar populations, age structures, seasons and healthcare systems.

I'm pretty sure the point was to delay people from dying until there was a vaccine (or some other way out)
- and then hopefully delay their deaths for quite a bit longer
- as far as I am aware the best outcome you can hope for regards death is to delay it

- sd

[vrdiver]

A Cambridge expert argues that countries who locked down early just delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality
.
.
.
Dr Ali compared the UK to European countries with similar populations, age structures, seasons and healthcare systems.

(my underline for emphasis)

Not quite sure how he's come to that conclusion, as just looking at the deaths per million of population on the worldometer* website suggest that the UK is currently sitting in 8th place, with the seven above us having a combined population of less than half the UK. All countries with similar populations appear, according to the worldometer data, to be doing somewhat better than us when measured by deaths per million of the population...

I'd be happy to hear any explanation as to how Dr Ali has reached such a conclusion, when my own is the complete opposite, just from looking at the data.

VRD

*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

[Lootman]

All countries with similar populations appear, according to the worldometer data, to be doing somewhat better than us when measured by deaths per million of the population...

But wouldn't you want to factor in the population density as well? Other things being equal, the closer people are living to each other, the faster an infection can potentially spread.

So as an example the two closest countries to the UK in terms of population are France and Thailand. But both have about double the land area of the UK.

[Nimrod103]

A Cambridge expert argues that countries who locked down early just delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality
.
.
.
Dr Ali compared the UK to European countries with similar populations, age structures, seasons and healthcare systems.

(my underline for emphasis)

Not quite sure how he's come to that conclusion, as just looking at the deaths per million of population on the worldometer* website suggest that the UK is currently sitting in 8th place, with the seven above us having a combined population of less than half the UK. All countries with similar populations appear, according to the worldometer data, to be doing somewhat better than us when measured by deaths per million of the population...

I'd be happy to hear any explanation as to how Dr Ali has reached such a conclusion, when my own is the complete opposite, just from looking at the data.

VRD

*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

More from the Dr Ali article:

“What happened in many other countries in Europe who also locked down (and closed their borders) at the same time is that they did have very small first waves in spring 2020 but this was followed by much larger second waves in autumn/winter 2021 (and now into spring 2021, too)”, he writes.
“And this has happened despite second and third lockdowns in many of these countries as people understandably struggled to maintain compliance with restrictions for months on end.”
He adds: “But based on current trends it seems likely that many of these countries that we thought were doing well due to their early lockdowns and small first waves will end up having higher excess mortality than the UK, including Czechia, Poland, Portugal, and many others.”

As to the high UK death toll, people are looking closely at our very high obesity rate
(discussed here by the acclaimed Tim Spector - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitn ... ed-summer/)
We are an unhealthy nation.

[servodude]

A Cambridge expert argues that countries who locked down early just delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality
.
.
.
Dr Ali compared the UK to European countries with similar populations, age structures, seasons and healthcare systems.

(my underline for emphasis)

Not quite sure how he's come to that conclusion, as just looking at the deaths per million of population on the worldometer* website suggest that the UK is currently sitting in 8th place, with the seven above us having a combined population of less than half the UK. All countries with similar populations appear, according to the worldometer data, to be doing somewhat better than us when measured by deaths per million of the population...

I'd be happy to hear any explanation as to how Dr Ali has reached such a conclusion, when my own is the complete opposite, just from looking at the data.

VRD

*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

More from the Dr Ali article:

“What happened in many other countries in Europe who also locked down (and closed their borders) at the same time is that they did have very small first waves in spring 2020 but this was followed by much larger second waves in autumn/winter 2021 (and now into spring 2021, too)”, he writes.
“And this has happened despite second and third lockdowns in many of these countries as people understandably struggled to maintain compliance with restrictions for months on end.”
He adds: “But based on current trends it seems likely that many of these countries that we thought were doing well due to their early lockdowns and small first waves will end up having higher excess mortality than the UK, including Czechia, Poland, Portugal, and many others.”

As to the high UK death toll, people are looking closely at our very high obesity rate
(discussed here by the acclaimed Tim Spector - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitn ... ed-summer/)
We are an unhealthy nation.

The UK isn't that atypical in its waistlines for a well off nation

It comes in at 11th on the OECD Obesity update with 26.2% of adults being obese
https://www.oecd.org/health/obesity-update.htm
- the USA has 40% and if it correlated strongly with COVID you'd expect their figures per capita to be proportionally higher ( and they don't seem to be)

It certainly doesn't help if you're overtly portly and catch this but I suspect the difference with the UK death count was the number of really old people that met the virus

- but you need to start with having the virus floating about (looking at some of the COVID outliers that come in as chubbier than the UK)

- sd

[vrdiver]

A Cambridge expert argues that countries who locked down early just delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality
.
.
.
Dr Ali compared the UK to European countries with similar populations, age structures, seasons and healthcare systems.

(my underline for emphasis)

Not quite sure how he's come to that conclusion, as just looking at the deaths per million of population on the worldometer* website suggest that the UK is currently sitting in 8th place, with the seven above us having a combined population of less than half the UK. All countries with similar populations appear, according to the worldometer data, to be doing somewhat better than us when measured by deaths per million of the population...

I'd be happy to hear any explanation as to how Dr Ali has reached such a conclusion, when my own is the complete opposite, just from looking at the data.

VRD

*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

More from the Dr Ali article:

“What happened in many other countries in Europe who also locked down (and closed their borders) at the same time is that they did have very small first waves in spring 2020 but this was followed by much larger second waves in autumn/winter 2021 (and now into spring 2021, too)”, he writes.
“And this has happened despite second and third lockdowns in many of these countries as people understandably struggled to maintain compliance with restrictions for months on end.”
He adds: “But based on current trends it seems likely that many of these countries that we thought were doing well due to their early lockdowns and small first waves will end up having higher excess mortality than the UK, including Czechia, Poland, Portugal, and many others.”

As to the high UK death toll, people are looking closely at our very high obesity rate
(discussed here by the acclaimed Tim Spector - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitn ... ed-summer/)
We are an unhealthy nation.

I think my objection / confusion is caused by the use of resulting rather than will result in. I.e. I read the headline statement as factual, rather than a prediction of a future outcome.

With the vaccination program in full swing (and may it continue!) we may never know the answer, as the vaccination impact may obscure any lockdown phasing effects. The consequences of obesity will no doubt be with us for the foreseeable future, sadly.

VRD

[vagrantbrain]

As to the high UK death toll, people are looking closely at our very high obesity rate
(discussed here by the acclaimed Tim Spector - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitn ... ed-summer/)
We are an unhealthy nation.

Fully agree. This is a point i've been making since last summer that it shouldn't really be a surprise that a disease that is most deadly to the old and fat would have a larger impact in countries with a larger proportion of old and fat people. In a perverse way it's almost like we're victims of our own success in creating societies where people have sufficient food and healthcare to allow them to live past 40.

[vrdiver]

This is a point i've been making since last summer that it shouldn't really be a surprise that a disease that is most deadly to the old and fat would have a larger impact in countries with a larger proportion of old and fat people. In a perverse way it's almost like we're victims of our own success in creating societies where people have sufficient food and healthcare to allow them to live past 40.

Disease only has to win once. Medicine has to win every time. The better we get at saving lives, the more issues we stack up that also need to be dealt with, so yes, we're victims of our own success, the success of staying alive despite aging and becoming more susceptible to things going wrong.

Obesity, however, is not what I'd include in the description of success. It's more a function of poor dietary choice (possibly caused by poor education and/or advertising manipulation) and also, perversely, related to poverty inasmuch as the wealthier societies have greater levels of obesity in the poorer segments of their populations. Possibly caused by cheaper foods being the ones that lead to obesity, whereas quality foods tend to be "premium" products and priced accordingly.

We've known that obesity is a significant indicator of poor-health-to-come, just as we've known that not taking regular exercise leads to poorer health outcomes over time. Our "success" might be considered more successful if we could translate these knowns into actions that improved life expectancy and quality of life. Apart from reducing (or at least delaying) costs on the NHS, we'd also be a bit better off when facing a disease like Covid19.

VRD

[88V8]

Obesity ..... Possibly caused by cheaper foods being the ones that lead to obesity, whereas quality foods tend to be "premium" products and priced accordingly.

Alas, this oft-repeated untruth has taken firm root in the media, perhaps amongst those who think it normal to live on takeaways and ready-to-cook.

Cooking from ingredients is not expensive. It just requires some mental effort to plan and shop, and some physical effort to prepare and cook.

Vegetables are not expensive. Nor is fruit. The 'poor' seem to have no trouble affording sweets and chocolate. Meat need not be expensive, and I don't mean battery chicken. It can be expensive of course. So can fish.
Our recent purchases have included ox cheek, pig liver, scrag end, pork belly (cheap) and venison, rib eye (expensive).
In cooking cheap cuts, the pressure cooker is your friend.
Nothing needs to be deep-fried.

We've also bought whole mackerel, whole sardines (cheap), Dover sole and brill (expensive).

Duck is widely available and per serving not expensive. But the concept of 'per serving' fights with the concept of 'leftovers' which all too often are thrown away by the lazy.

One way and another, the notion that a healthy diet is expensive is simply a lie put about by the idle, and needs constant calling out.

Yes, all this might be more appropriate hidden away on the Food board where no one will read it, but as you mentioned the matter.....

V8

[vrdiver]

Obesity ..... Possibly caused by cheaper foods being the ones that lead to obesity, whereas quality foods tend to be "premium" products and priced accordingly.

Alas, this oft-repeated untruth has taken firm root in the media, perhaps amongst those who think it normal to live on takeaways and ready-to-cook.

Cooking from ingredients is not expensive. It just requires some mental effort to plan and shop, and some physical effort to prepare and cook.

Vegetables are not expensive. Nor is fruit. The 'poor' seem to have no trouble affording sweets and chocolate. Meat need not be expensive, and I don't mean battery chicken. It can be expensive of course. So can fish.
Our recent purchases have included ox cheek, pig liver, scrag end, pork belly (cheap) and venison, rib eye (expensive).
In cooking cheap cuts, the pressure cooker is your friend.
Nothing needs to be deep-fried.

We've also bought whole mackerel, whole sardines (cheap), Dover sole and brill (expensive).

Duck is widely available and per serving not expensive. But the concept of 'per serving' fights with the concept of 'leftovers' which all too often are thrown away by the lazy.

One way and another, the notion that a healthy diet is expensive is simply a lie put about by the idle, and needs constant calling out.

Yes, all this might be more appropriate hidden away on the Food board where no one will read it, but as you mentioned the matter.....

V8

No argument from me with that correction! Perhaps I should have clarified that "cheaper" is often a perception, or it is a function of "bargain hunting". E.g. I can buy a single pack of cheese, but my supermarket helpfully offers a multibuy (which may even cost more per unit but is dressed up to look like a bargain). We all know the adage, buy 5x as much and it lasts nearly twice as long", which is what the supermarkets are relying on.

It can be educational to follow people around as they shop; watching a shopping trolley fill up with large bottles of fizzy (full fat) drinks, multibuy packs of crisps, cakes and other sugary treats, ready meals and cook-in sauces, with little if any "raw materials" from which to actually cook. It's a glimpse into how children's lives are condemned to follow the obesity of their parents, with little chance of breaking the cycle. Being very judgemental, my observations suggest that these are not the ABC1 members of society.

Supermarkets are also, it seems to me when looking at ready meals, pre-chopped carrots, mashed potatoes, bags of lettuce leaf etc., aiming squarely at satisfying time-poor/lazy consumers. During my last shop, I noticed a whole iceberg lettuce is currently around 50p, but a bag of lettuce leaves containing less than a quarter of a lettuce sells for the same price or a little more.

Time to spend on, and interest in, food, perhaps should be the point, but these days it seems so many people simply can't be bothered to cook from scratch. I'd say we do, but then we're both retired and have an interest in cooking, so probably not much of a moral high ground to preach from

VRD