Coronavirus Discussion Thread

[shurlock]

This is the kind of thinking that led to this flawed model. The results were widely different when other institutions tried to replicate the outcomes of the model. They were even different with different sized data arrays and between single and multi threads. This indicates buggy software and should at least have raised some warning flags both figuratively and literally.

 

According to my friend who read's the blog and is a highly skilled coder and modeller (they're not the same thing), the nature of the bug which occurred at the seed storage stage (and has been subsequently fixed) shouldn't compromise the model and its results when its run many times.

Edited 7 May, 2020 by shurlock

[verlaine1979]

I’m saying that it can’t be proved because we cannot try the alternative approach. As things stand we are higher than other countries.

 

Unless you have specific criticisms of the assumptions behind the lockdown, you're going to have to do better than 'yeah, but empiricism'.

[egg]

I’m saying that it can’t be proved because we cannot try the alternative approach. As things stand we are higher than other countries.

It's pretty obvious - less spread = less infection = less deaths.

[Lighthouse]

I’m saying that it can’t be proved because we cannot try the alternative approach. As things stand we are higher than other countries.

 

Other countries are meaningless in this context, there are far too many social variables.

 

Reduced social contact will reduce the chance of infection. Fewer infections mean fewer deaths. Those are both universal truths, I can't see any way they can be debated.

[OttawaSaint]

There isn't a country on this planet that will see 500k deaths. or 250k. Lets just stay at home forever shall we? Too risky to leave our own front door?

 

USA think it’s the Olympics. They’ll likely surpass 250k

Edited 7 May, 2020 by OttawaSaint

[ant]

Probably because half the country are sat on their fat arses being paid 80% of their wages. Come June when it starts getting reduced they will be less likely to want to sit at home.

 

Interesting that most people seem to think that they will go back to work after furlough when in reality lots of businesses will start looking to shed workers through redundancy once the furlough payments dry up.

 

Watch unemployment start to significant rise over the next 12 months and we will see if people agree with the lockdown once they lose their homes.

 

Here's one for you, then.

 

Within a week of the 'lockdown' my employer made me redundant. In short, because they couldn't be arsed to run the basic, minimal admin to furlough me. And despite me offering to defer any wages until such time that the government portal was operational and paying out.

 

I've been running on about £150/week since (not any form of benefits - from taking whatever part-time work I could).

 

I support the current measures.

 

I'm able to see that these were necessary to reduce transmission and to avoid overwhelming ICUs. To prevent other avoidable, indirect deaths that could've occurred due to lack of hospital capacity.

 

My finances have taken a tremendous hit, and will take a long time to recover. It will affect future plans from the big (trying to save for a mortgage deposit) to the trivial (such as missing out on the next likely season ticket, for the first time in a decade).

 

The nation's seen more than 30,000 deaths already. More than 30,000 in the space of a couple of months. More than 30,000, when - even if we are past the peak - we'll be living with this virus for a bloody good while yet. More than 30,000, despite the measures that were put in place.

 

Given those factors, how is a projected 250,000+ deaths so implausible, had this action not been taken? Had we not shielded the most vulnerable. Had we not reduced transmission to a minimum. Had we not prevented emergency services from being overwhelmed.

 

Your second and third paragraphs trip over themselves... If you're advocating easing lockdown measures and the economy magically recovering, then businesses would spin back up again; services would be required, purchases would be made and staff would be needed to facilitate that.

 

There'd be a lot of turnover, and people shuffling between jobs, but mass unemployment would begin to settle down.

 

Equally, I find it bizarre that some don't seem to think that deaths on a grand scale would have any effect on economics. Even for those so callous as to call for allowing the virus to ravage those most at risk.

 

More realistically we're looking towards a measured, phased approach back to some semblance of what we're used to. I simply don't understand what's to fault with playing the percentages and safeguarding against a second spike?

 

Anybody that thinks we're going to imminently return to 'normal' needs to give their head a wobble. There is no silver bullet to deal with the situation, and decisions made need to juggle an incredible number of factors.

 

Yes, there must be some semblance of balance. Accordingly the likelihood is that we're going to see varying levels of restrictions placed upon us for many more months to come. Opening everything up again now simply places us right back where we were at the start of March.

 

Measures will be loosened (and, if necessary, tightened) as required, per balancing on that tightrope. Which seems entirely logical and reasonable to me, so long as any adjustments are made in a timely manner.

 

Without delving into the motivation, the papers and associated media have been incredibly irresponsible over the last couple of days in feeding messaging that's not simply not borne of the reality. Today you could already see the effects of that, with more and more people acting like this is coming to a close.

 

It ain't. Not by a long straw.

[Dark Munster]

Top post ant. Hope it works out for you.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think you will struggle to find any dictionary that defines the economy as the lives of humans.

 

Then you need to broaden your understanding.

[Charlie Wayman]

There isn't a country on this planet that will see 500k deaths. or 250k. Lets just stay at home forever shall we? Too risky to leave our own front door?

 

If there could be one thing worse than this Tory government handling the crises, it would be that somebody would take your comments seriously. It is not worth asking you for evidence to supports your absurd utterances.

[Charlie Wayman]

Here's one for you, then.

 

Within a week of the 'lockdown' my employer made me redundant. In short, because they couldn't be arsed to run the basic, minimal admin to furlough me. And despite me offering to defer any wages until such time that the government portal was operational and paying out.

 

I've been running on about £150/week since (not any form of benefits - from taking whatever part-time work I could).

 

I support the current measures.

 

I'm able to see that these were necessary to reduce transmission and to avoid overwhelming ICUs. To prevent other avoidable, indirect deaths that could've occurred due to lack of hospital capacity.

 

My finances have taken a tremendous hit, and will take a long time to recover. It will affect future plans from the big (trying to save for a mortgage deposit) to the trivial (such as missing out on the next likely season ticket, for the first time in a decade).

 

The nation's seen more than 30,000 deaths already. More than 30,000 in the space of a couple of months. More than 30,000, when - even if we are past the peak - we'll be living with this virus for a bloody good while yet. More than 30,000, despite the measures that were put in place.

 

Given those factors, how is a projected 250,000+ deaths so implausible, had this action not been taken? Had we not shielded the most vulnerable. Had we not reduced transmission to a minimum. Had we not prevented emergency services from being overwhelmed.

 

Your second and third paragraphs trip over themselves... If you're advocating easing lockdown measures and the economy magically recovering, then businesses would spin back up again; services would be required, purchases would be made and staff would be needed to facilitate that.

 

There'd be a lot of turnover, and people shuffling between jobs, but mass unemployment would begin to settle down.

 

Equally, I find it bizarre that some don't seem to think that deaths on a grand scale would have any effect on economics. Even for those so callous as to call for allowing the virus to ravage those most at risk.

 

More realistically we're looking towards a measured, phased approach back to some semblance of what we're used to. I simply don't understand what's to fault with playing the percentages and safeguarding against a second spike?

 

Anybody that thinks we're going to imminently return to 'normal' needs to give their head a wobble. There is no silver bullet to deal with the situation, and decisions made need to juggle an incredible number of factors.

 

Yes, there must be some semblance of balance. Accordingly the likelihood is that we're going to see varying levels of restrictions placed upon us for many more months to come. Opening everything up again now simply places us right back where we were at the start of March.

 

Measures will be loosened (and, if necessary, tightened) as required, per balancing on that tightrope. Which seems entirely logical and reasonable to me, so long as any adjustments are made in a timely manner.

 

Without delving into the motivation, the papers and associated media have been incredibly irresponsible over the last couple of days in feeding messaging that's not simply not borne of the reality. Today you could already see the effects of that, with more and more people acting like this is coming to a close.

 

It ain't. Not by a long straw.

 

A superb post and thank you for it. Even with the lockdown we are losing over 600 people per day and not just we golden oldies. We lost just over 500,000 people during 6 years of WW2, military and civilian. Worth keeping that in mind when trivialising the effects of Covid-19

[Lord Duckhunter]

A superb post and thank you for it. Even with the lockdown we are losing over 600 people per day and not just we golden oldies. We lost just over 500,000 people during 6 years of WW2, military and civilian. Worth keeping that in mind when trivialising the effects of Covid-19

 

403,000 people died of malaria in Africa in 2017 , that’s a treatable preventable disease. 1.5 million people died of TB in 2018. Up to 143,000 die of cholera each year. All round the world nations are expected to live with these diseases, the west won’t spend billions eradicating them, yet as soon as soon as something threatens a few thousand of our citizens, we hide away indoors. I’m pretty sure if Africa, India, & other countries can live with far deadlier diseases, then we can live with Covid without trashing the economy & piling up eye watering amounts of debt for future generations to deal with.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lighthouse]

403,000 people died of malaria in Africa in 2017 , that’s a treatable preventable disease. 1.5 million people died of TB in 2018. Up to 143,000 die of cholera each year. All round the world nations are expected to live with these diseases, the west won’t spend billions eradicating them, yet as soon as soon as something threatens a few thousand of our citizens, we hide away indoors. I’m pretty sure if Africa, India, & other countries can live with far deadlier diseases, then we can live with Covid without trashing the economy & piling up eye watering amounts of debt for future generations to deal with.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

A few thousand.

 

Without social restrictions Covid 19 might kill more people in Britain (pop. 67m) than malaria kills in the whole of Africa (pop. 1.2bn). Availability of medication in third world countries is a separate issue. If we did nothing we would trash the economy anyway. The numbers off work sick and the fatalities would all do enormous damage, not to mention other people who would engage in their own social distancing. Even without the government lockdown, I'd be avoiding pubs and Saints games for the foreseeable future.

[eurosaint]

Here's one for you, then.

 

Within a week of the 'lockdown' my employer made me redundant. In short, because they couldn't be arsed to run the basic, minimal admin to furlough me. And despite me offering to defer any wages until such time that the government portal was operational and paying out.

 

I've been running on about £150/week since (not any form of benefits - from taking whatever part-time work I could).

 

I support the current measures.

 

I'm able to see that these were necessary to reduce transmission and to avoid overwhelming ICUs. To prevent other avoidable, indirect deaths that could've occurred due to lack of hospital capacity.

 

My finances have taken a tremendous hit, and will take a long time to recover. It will affect future plans from the big (trying to save for a mortgage deposit) to the trivial (such as missing out on the next likely season ticket, for the first time in a decade).

 

The nation's seen more than 30,000 deaths already. More than 30,000 in the space of a couple of months. More than 30,000, when - even if we are past the peak - we'll be living with this virus for a bloody good while yet. More than 30,000, despite the measures that were put in place.

 

Given those factors, how is a projected 250,000+ deaths so implausible, had this action not been taken? Had we not shielded the most vulnerable. Had we not reduced transmission to a minimum. Had we not prevented emergency services from being overwhelmed.

 

Your second and third paragraphs trip over themselves... If you're advocating easing lockdown measures and the economy magically recovering, then businesses would spin back up again; services would be required, purchases would be made and staff would be needed to facilitate that.

 

There'd be a lot of turnover, and people shuffling between jobs, but mass unemployment would begin to settle down.

 

Equally, I find it bizarre that some don't seem to think that deaths on a grand scale would have any effect on economics. Even for those so callous as to call for allowing the virus to ravage those most at risk.

 

More realistically we're looking towards a measured, phased approach back to some semblance of what we're used to. I simply don't understand what's to fault with playing the percentages and safeguarding against a second spike?

 

Anybody that thinks we're going to imminently return to 'normal' needs to give their head a wobble. There is no silver bullet to deal with the situation, and decisions made need to juggle an incredible number of factors.

 

Yes, there must be some semblance of balance. Accordingly the likelihood is that we're going to see varying levels of restrictions placed upon us for many more months to come. Opening everything up again now simply places us right back where we were at the start of March.

 

Measures will be loosened (and, if necessary, tightened) as required, per balancing on that tightrope. Which seems entirely logical and reasonable to me, so long as any adjustments are made in a timely manner.

 

Without delving into the motivation, the papers and associated media have been incredibly irresponsible over the last couple of days in feeding messaging that's not simply not borne of the reality. Today you could already see the effects of that, with more and more people acting like this is coming to a close.

 

It ain't. Not by a long straw.

 

Well said Ant and like Dark Munster, I wish you well !

I live on the IoW and have signed up to the track, trace & test app which I really hope gives positive feedback that can be rolled out nationally !

There are some reservations naturally but I'm sure that it can be tweaked as we go along, then it should at least contain the situation until a vaccine eventually becomes available !

In the meantime I support a measured easing of the lockdown, in particular the anomalies which exist whereby the likes of B&Q can sell garden products but nurseries /market traders cannot (there are many other examples right across the business spectrum) !!

[East Kent Saint]

To add to ant’s comments it appears the “friendly” media were briefed by the Govt so yesterday’s headlines were all about easing the lockdown and Boris to brief us on Sunday about all these new freedoms. All now denied by Rabb !

 

The emergency RAF airlift of PPE has gone wrong as the gowns don’t meet UK spec and were produced by a T shirt business , no further details are available !! NHS asking the Govt to stop over promising and under delivering .

[whelk]

A few thousand.

 

Without social restrictions Covid 19 might kill more people in Britain (pop. 67m) than malaria kills in the whole of Africa (pop. 1.2bn). Availability of medication in third world countries is a separate issue. If we did nothing we would trash the economy anyway. The numbers off work sick and the fatalities would all do enormous damage, not to mention other people who would engage in their own social distancing. Even without the government lockdown, I'd be avoiding pubs and Saints games for the foreseeable future.

 

Would be interesting what the gate would be if we did start allowing crowds. Seems like this is going to lead to permanent change of behaviour of those who are more risk averse

[beatlesaint]

yet as soon as soon as something threatens a few thousand of our citizens, we hide away indoors.

 

Interesting. I seem to recall that before lockdown was imposed you were quick to tell everyone that through a family connection in a hospital (your wife I believe) this thing was much much worse than the Govt were admitting to and that action should be taken immediately. Now your stance has changed somewhat. No surprise there I guess.

[The Cat]

Putting the woman in charge of track and trace who previously was responsible for a massive data breach at Talk Talk and is also married to a Tory MP isn't a great look.

[davefoggy]

A few thousand.

 

Without social restrictions Covid 19 might kill more people in Britain (pop. 67m) than malaria kills in the whole of Africa (pop. 1.2bn). Availability of medication in third world countries is a separate issue. If we did nothing we would trash the economy anyway. The numbers off work sick and the fatalities would all do enormous damage, not to mention other people who would engage in their own social distancing. Even without the government lockdown, I'd be avoiding pubs and Saints games for the foreseeable future.

 

Pure hype & speculation.

[Matthew Le God]

Then you need to broaden your understanding.

 

You need to read a dictionary, because they do not use human lives/deaths in their definition of economy.

[Matthew Le God]

Pure hype & speculation.

 

Thousands have died with social distancing, no social distancing as you appear to want with your 'return to normal' would be an absolute disaster!

[davefoggy]

Thousands have died with social distancing, no social distancing as you appear to want with your 'return to normal' would be an absolute disaster!

 

Would it?? where's the evidence?

[Matthew Le God]

Would it?? where's the evidence?

 

So you don't think social distancing reduces transmission rates? The reduction in people standing next to each other clearly reduces virus spreading. I don't see how you can argue against that.

 

If there is reduction in the virus spreading then there is going to be a reduction in deaths.

 

You want us to 'go back to normal'... that would lead to an increase in transmission and and increase in deaths!

[davefoggy]

So you don't think social distancing reduces transmission rates? The reduction in people standing next to each other clearly reduces virus spreading. I don't see how you can argue against that.

 

If there is reduction in the virus spreading then there is going to be a reduction in deaths.

 

You want us to 'go back to normal'... that would lead to an increase in transmission and and increase in deaths!

 

Millions of people are not going to die. Stop watching the news

[Matthew Le God]

Millions of people are not going to die. Stop watching the news

 

You didn't answer the question.

 

Also, I didn't say millions in the UK would die. I'm struggling to see how you think going back to normal wouldn't see a huge spike in deaths. They are at 30k which is horrific despite social distancing, no social distancing would increase transmission and increase deaths. Please explain why that wouldn't be the case?

[Lighthouse]

Millions of people are not going to die. Stop watching the news

 

And start what? Reading blogs by conspiracy theorists. Millions already have in China.

[Greenridge]

Would it?? where's the evidence?

 

After this horrible time in history is over I’ll firstly think about the awful global loss of lives then I’ll think of what an absolute t1t you made of yourself. Ably assisted by a handful of other loons.

[Alanh]

I am pretty sure davefoggy is on a wind up. He's deliberately sticking to the simple - let's go back to normal - line without any recognition of any other issues. Either that or he's very simplistic in his outlook on life and incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

[Give it to Ron]

After this horrible time in history is over I’ll firstly think about the awful global loss of lives then I’ll think of what an absolute t1t you made of yourself. Ably assisted by a handful of other loons.

 

Even with it written in front of him he wouldn’t understand or get it.

Evidence is there I told him first hand yet denies and can’t see past his bank balance

Shame

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[benjii]

Interesting. I seem to recall that before lockdown was imposed you were quick to tell everyone that through a family connection in a hospital (your wife I believe) this thing was much much worse than the Govt were admitting to and that action should be taken immediately. Now your stance has changed somewhat. No surprise there I guess.

 

Yeah, he was one of the most portentous around. Giving it large about running out of ventilators and bodies stacked up everywhere.

 

The reality is, this disease had the potential for exponential growth with fat-tailed attributes. Precaution was needed. Comparisons with malaria, cholera etc., whilst showing the real tragedy facing many people in the world's poorer countries, are largely irrelevant when it comes to managing this risk in any other given country.

 

Now, there will come a point where we have enough data on mortality rates and infection rates, hopefully soon, where we can start taking a more calculated approach and get back to something more akin to "normal".

[Lord Duckhunter]

Interesting. I seem to recall that before lockdown was imposed you were quick to tell everyone that through a family connection in a hospital (your wife I believe) this thing was much much worse than the Govt were admitting to and that action should be taken immediately. Now your stance has changed somewhat. No surprise there I guess.

 

Hasn’t changed at all. As you say, before lockdown I supported measures to slow down the virus & protect the venerable. I didn’t support trashing the economy & millions of jobs being put at risk. A limited lockdown should have been in place to ensure the NHS could cope, and we wouldn’t have people dying in hotel corridors. But, people who could work should have continued to do so.

 

Just wait till the furlough scheme is wound up, then see the mayhem & job losses that follow. Then let’s see how a political class of pinkos & soft arsed lefties go about paying the money back. They won’t raise taxes, are frightened to death of austerity, so they’ll probably reduce the debt by letting inflation rip.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jimmy_D]

Even with it written in front of him he wouldn’t understand or get it.

Evidence is there I told him first hand yet denies and can’t see past his bank balance

Shame

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Unfortunately it looks like we’re going to get a real world example of what it looks like to just ignore it, judging by what’s happening in Brazil.

[davefoggy]

And start what? Reading blogs by conspiracy theorists. Millions already have in China.

 

Millions of people have not died in China! It's simply not true. I have a lot of connections in China, they are pretty much back to normal. It's all hype and scaremongering

[davefoggy]

Hasn’t changed at all. As you say, before lockdown I supported measures to slow down the virus & protect the venerable. I didn’t support trashing the economy & millions of jobs being put at risk. A limited lockdown should have been in place to ensure the NHS could cope, and we wouldn’t have people dying in hotel corridors. But, people who could work should have continued to do so.

 

Just wait till the furlough scheme is wound up, then see the mayhem & job losses that follow. Then let’s see how a political class of pinkos & soft arsed lefties go about paying the money back. They won’t raise taxes, are frightened to death of austerity, so they’ll probably reduce the debt by letting inflation rip.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Exactly

[SFC Forever]

There isn't a country on this planet that will see 500k deaths. or 250k. Lets just stay at home forever shall we? Too risky to leave our own front door?

 

 

Surprise surprise yet again you failed to answer the question I asked.

 

Maybe it was too difficult for you.

 

However let me ask again. If we are all allowed to return to normal without ending the pandemic and you catch covid 19 who will you blame.

[davefoggy]

After this horrible time in history is over I’ll firstly think about the awful global loss of lives then I’ll think of what an absolute t1t you made of yourself. Ably assisted by a handful of other loons.

 

 

I wouldn't waste your time thinking about me mate, or all my other loony friends for that matter

[norwaysaint]

All schools in Norway going back next week, but lots of measures still in place and lots of online teaching still happening.

[davefoggy]

Surprise surprise yet again you failed to answer the question I asked.

 

Maybe it was too difficult for you.

 

However let me ask again. If we are all allowed to return to normal without ending the pandemic and you catch covid 19 who will you blame.

 

And when do you think that will be exactly? This year? Next year? Are we all to stay at home forever??? utterly ridiculous

 

I will happily take my chances thanks. Like I said before, the overwhelming vast majority of people that get this 'virus' have little or no symptoms, or mild symptoms at worse. And the majority of those poor souls who need hospital treatment get better, thankfully. Over 95% of people who die with "coronavirus" on their death certificate (whether they've been tested or not) are elderly and have an average of 3 underlying health conditions. That's the facts. Not theory, fact.

 

So lets do everything we can to shield the elderly and vulnerable, for as long as it takes, and let everyone else get back to normal, albeit with social distancing if you want.

 

And let's get the hospital wards back open and start treating cancer patients etc again before it's too late for them.

 

I suspect that there are many on here that agree with me on this but haven't got the balls to say so in a public forum.

 

You'll be pleased to know that this will be my last comment on the subject

[norwaysaint]

And when do you think that will be exactly? This year? Next year? Are we all to stay at home forever??? utterly ridiculous

 

I will happily take my chances thanks. Like I said before, the overwhelming vast majority of people that get this 'virus' have little or no symptoms, or mild symptoms at worse. And the majority of those poor souls who need hospital treatment get better, thankfully. Over 95% of people who die with "coronavirus" on their death certificate (whether they've been tested or not) are elderly and have an average of 3 underlying health conditions. That's the facts. Not theory, fact.

 

So lets do everything we can to shield the elderly and vulnerable, for as long as it takes, and let everyone else get back to normal, albeit with social distancing if you want.

 

And let's get the hospital wards back open and start treating cancer patients etc again before it's too late for them.

 

I suspect that there are many on here that agree with me on this but haven't got the balls to say so in a public forum.

 

You'll be pleased to know that this will be my last comment on the subject

 

This sounds a little silly. The Uk is one of the places in the world where the virus has been most poorly controlled. The only place with more infections ids the USA and they have a much bigger population. It got that way because the UK has been famously slow at getting it's lockdown and testing in place. The UK should not be among the first to relax measures.

[Lighthouse]

This sounds a little silly. The Uk is one of the places in the world where the virus has been most poorly controlled. The only place with more infections ids the USA and they have a much bigger population. It got that way because the UK has been famously slow at getting it's lockdown and testing in place. The UK should not be among the first to relax measures.

 

It's impossible to really make any fair comparisons between countries, there are just too many variables. However on the face of it the USA, Brazil, China and Belarus have all done a much worse job.

[whelk]

Hasn’t changed at all. As you say, before lockdown I supported measures to slow down the virus & protect the venerable. I didn’t support trashing the economy & millions of jobs being put at risk. A limited lockdown should have been in place to ensure the NHS could cope, and we wouldn’t have people dying in hotel corridors. But, people who could work should have continued to do so.

 

Just wait till the furlough scheme is wound up, then see the mayhem & job losses that follow. Then let’s see how a political class of pinkos & soft arsed lefties go about paying the money back. They won’t raise taxes, are frightened to death of austerity, so they’ll probably reduce the debt by letting inflation rip.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Frightened to death of austerity - you would be front of the queue as one of those thick cnts - pandemic planning? Sufficient PPE? Fck that I don’t want to pay any tax.

Sanctimonious fool.

[The Cat]

It's impossible to really make any fair comparisons between countries, there are just too many variables. However on the face of it the USA, Brazil, China and Belarus have all done a much worse job.

 

Belarus don't really seem bothered. They even started their football season during the middle of a worldwide pandemic.

 

Brazil's president seems like a bit of a lunatic so it's no surprise they're coming out of it quite badly.

 

What annoys me about our approach is the missed opportunities. Depleted stockpiles of PPE, the half baked message to stop going out, allowing a weekend of huge events to happen, not gearing up to carry out a lot more tests earlier. We knew what was coming but sat on our hands for too long.

 

Even now we hear today that they never meant for fast food places to close. Well if that was the case then why not tell them earlier?

 

Stay at home, save lives (but only if you can work from home, and if you do stay open you can circumnavigate social distancing rules under the guidance anyway so it doesn't matter)

 

We've had a lockdown that wasn't really a proper lockdown with vague instructions. None of this has been implemented in a strong, concise way. The Government has completely failed us, preferring to brief the press on their intentions rather than just come out and tell the public.

[Jimmy_D]

And when do you think that will be exactly? This year? Next year? Are we all to stay at home forever??? utterly ridiculous

 

I will happily take my chances thanks. Like I said before, the overwhelming vast majority of people that get this 'virus' have little or no symptoms, or mild symptoms at worse. And the majority of those poor souls who need hospital treatment get better, thankfully. Over 95% of people who die with "coronavirus" on their death certificate (whether they've been tested or not) are elderly and have an average of 3 underlying health conditions. That's the facts. Not theory, fact.

 

So lets do everything we can to shield the elderly and vulnerable, for as long as it takes, and let everyone else get back to normal, albeit with social distancing if you want.

 

And let's get the hospital wards back open and start treating cancer patients etc again before it's too late for them.

 

I suspect that there are many on here that agree with me on this but haven't got the balls to say so in a public forum.

 

You'll be pleased to know that this will be my last comment on the subject

 

I don’t suppose when WWII started, anyone was expecting to have to deal with that being reality for six years. You’re going to have to get your head around the fact that we’ll be dealing with this for as long as it takes, because it really doesn’t care what we think of it. It just ‘is’.

 

You might be happy to take your chances, but the restrictions are in place to protect everyone else from you, as well as to protect you.

 

Why does the fact that someone has an underlying health condition mean that you’d be willing to let them die from this?

 

Trying to pretend that this isn’t happening and everyone has overreacted isn’t going to help you. Pretending that everything is going to suddenly go back to normal isn’t going to help you.

Edited 8 May, 2020 by Jimmy_D

[waylander]

And when do you think that will be exactly? This year? Next year? Are we all to stay at home forever??? utterly ridiculous

 

I will happily take my chances thanks. Like I said before, the overwhelming vast majority of people that get this 'virus' have little or no symptoms, or mild symptoms at worse. And the majority of those poor souls who need hospital treatment get better, thankfully. Over 95% of people who die with "coronavirus" on their death certificate (whether they've been tested or not) are elderly and have an average of 3 underlying health conditions. That's the facts. Not theory, fact.

 

So lets do everything we can to shield the elderly and vulnerable, for as long as it takes, and let everyone else get back to normal, albeit with social distancing if you want.

 

And let's get the hospital wards back open and start treating cancer patients etc again before it's too late for them.

 

I suspect that there are many on here that agree with me on this but haven't got the balls to say so in a public forum.

 

You'll be pleased to know that this will be my last comment on the subject

 

Do you have any older relatives that you care about?

[Shroppie]

Oh dear. Mike Pence's press secretary has got it. Not only has she had close contact with the VP, her husband is a close senior adviser of Trump.

 

We just have to keep our fingers crossed.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Jimmy_D]

Belarus don't really seem bothered. They even started their football season during the middle of a worldwide pandemic.

 

Brazil's president seems like a bit of a lunatic so it's no surprise they're coming out of it quite badly.

 

What annoys me about our approach is the missed opportunities. Depleted stockpiles of PPE, the half baked message to stop going out, allowing a weekend of huge events to happen, not gearing up to carry out a lot more tests earlier. We knew what was coming but sat on our hands for too long.

 

Even now we hear today that they never meant for fast food places to close. Well if that was the case then why not tell them earlier?

 

Stay at home, save lives (but only if you can work from home, and if you do stay open you can circumnavigate social distancing rules under the guidance anyway so it doesn't matter)

 

We've had a lockdown that wasn't really a proper lockdown with vague instructions. None of this has been implemented in a strong, concise way. The Government has completely failed us, preferring to brief the press on their intentions rather than just come out and tell the public.

 

It’s easy to say things should have been done differently with hindsight. No doubt that weekend of big events has cost lives, but at the time, it was thought that it probably wasn’t transmissible without symptoms. That one single ability is what made this so much more dangerous. Without that, people would have an indication that they needed to lock themselves down and it would have been as effective as the current measures locking everyone down, as well as giving an indication to other people that thay need to distance themselves from someone, people remembering they’d been near someone with symptoms etc.

[aintforever]

It’s easy to say things should have been done differently with hindsight. No doubt that weekend of big events has cost lives, but at the time, it was thought that it probably wasn’t transmissible without symptoms. That one single ability is what made this so much more dangerous. Without that, people would have an indication that they needed to lock themselves down and it would have been as effective as the current measures locking everyone down, as well as giving an indication to other people that thay need to distance themselves from someone, people remembering they’d been near someone with symptoms etc.

 

Re: symptoms, our government knew the same as all the others and I remember many other countries saying we were nuts at the time.

 

The reason they gave at the time was that if we locked down too early we wouldn’t stick to it, advice given by behavioural scientists. It would be interesting to know who gave the advice and what they said exactly.

[shurlock]

It’s easy to say things should have been done differently with hindsight. No doubt that weekend of big events has cost lives, but at the time, it was thought that it probably wasn’t transmissible without symptoms. That one single ability is what made this so much more dangerous. Without that, people would have an indication that they needed to lock themselves down and it would have been as effective as the current measures locking everyone down, as well as giving an indication to other people that thay need to distance themselves from someone, people remembering they’d been near someone with symptoms etc.

 

There was serious research published before the lockdown showing that asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 could transmit the virus. No doubt experts and policymakers would have been informed of those cases and findings even before then.

Edited 8 May, 2020 by shurlock

[Jimmy_D]

There was serious research published in February showing that asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 could transmit the virus. No doubt experts and policymakers would have been informed of those cases and findings even before then.

 

https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa119/5807958

 

This was the earliest one I saw, the weekend of the races. Happy to be corrected if there was earlier evidence published.

[shurlock]

https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa119/5807958

 

This was the earliest one I saw, the weekend of the races. Happy to be corrected if there was earlier evidence published.

 

https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa077/5739751

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7088568/#__ffn_sectitle

 

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30114-6.pdf

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2001468

 

Either way it’s moot - the lag between doing research and it being published is significant, so findings would have been circulating among policymakers and decisionmakers well before they were published and made available to the public. Even the article you cite was received on March 2.

Edited 8 May, 2020 by shurlock

[Lighthouse]

Belarus don't really seem bothered. They even started their football season during the middle of a worldwide pandemic.

 

Brazil's president seems like a bit of a lunatic so it's no surprise they're coming out of it quite badly.

 

What annoys me about our approach is the missed opportunities. Depleted stockpiles of PPE, the half baked message to stop going out, allowing a weekend of huge events to happen, not gearing up to carry out a lot more tests earlier. We knew what was coming but sat on our hands for too long.

 

Even now we hear today that they never meant for fast food places to close. Well if that was the case then why not tell them earlier?

 

Stay at home, save lives (but only if you can work from home, and if you do stay open you can circumnavigate social distancing rules under the guidance anyway so it doesn't matter)

 

We've had a lockdown that wasn't really a proper lockdown with vague instructions. None of this has been implemented in a strong, concise way. The Government has completely failed us, preferring to brief the press on their intentions rather than just come out and tell the public.

 

Lukaschenko is equally as nutty as the Brazilian guy and I doubt we will get anything close to an accurate death toll from them.

 

Clearly the government was hoping to get away with a softer approach, a bit like Sweden and only toughened up when it became apparent that it wasn't going to work. Was it indecision or simply not wanting to overreact and damage the economy. Probably a bit of both but I can't be too mad at them wanting/hoping to keep things running. It's also worth pointing out that a large number of idiots in the general public made things worse. If it weren't for a bunch of clowns saying, "hey we're all furloughed and off work, lets get together for a BBQ," we'd probably be in less of a mess.

 

Could they have been harder, with fewer deaths but worse damage to the economy? Yes. Would that have been right? F**k knows.