Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

 

The change will see Germany follow the UK’s example and space out the first and second jabs of the vaccine by a maximum of 12 weeks, in order to quickly give more people initial protection against the virus.

 

Well, who would have guessed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ron obvious said:

Lord Sumption's view:

 

 

Its quite interesting if you listen to the whole thing - in many ways he comes over as an anarchist (in that you make your own choices - your own choices trump the common good) and has criticisms of 'democracy'. He correctly identifies that the young have been very badly treated (and continue to be badly treated) by the current policies for the selfish benefit of us oldies.  

It's all very high-brow but rather idealistic in that he doesn't at all address the chaos and deaths that might ensue if we just let it rip. No answers to that at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ron obvious said:

Lord Sumption's view:

 

 

Thanks for that. Very thought provoking.

Some key points come out of this i feel.

1)how did 'liberalism" become a minority and contentious attitude

2) what will we do next time a pandemic is threatened?  Does lockdown become the norm ahead of the science?

3) has the Western reaction to this eroded liberal democracy? )Maybe this is a question  we need to ask in Hong Kong )

4) would we have voted for this in March 2020 had we known that lockdown would last over a year, elections would be suspended, the national debt would skyrocket  holidays would become illegal and the NHS would still be under strain and people would still be dying a year later?

I'm actually pro lockdown but we do need to be very careful about what lessons we learn as a new disease will emerge again and the same questions will be posed again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Its quite interesting if you listen to the whole thing - in many ways he comes over as an anarchist (in that you make your own choices - your own choices trump the common good) and has criticisms of 'democracy'. He correctly identifies that the young have been very badly treated (and continue to be badly treated) by the current policies for the selfish benefit of us oldies.  

It's all very high-brow but rather idealistic in that he doesn't at all address the chaos and deaths that might ensue if we just let it rip. No answers to that at all. 

He doesn't address it because it's impossible to know in any real (scientifically provable) sense. And where is he actually advocating " letting it rip"?

There is no consistent data with which to test a predictive model. Look at the Euromomo figures

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

And the data from various US states shows no consistency whatsoever. Compare California to Florida for example.

So I suspect what is driving most of our response is our instinct, which is primarily to avoid death at all costs. Disease - particularly airborne disease - is to be most feared because it's incredibly difficult to stop. The only logical way to be certain to stop transmission is to avoid all contact with others. Complete lockdown. But this of course presents its own problems ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

He doesn't address it because it's impossible to know in any real (scientifically provable) sense. And where is he actually advocating " letting it rip"?

There is no consistent data with which to test a predictive model. Look at the Euromomo figures

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

And the data from various US states shows no consistency whatsoever. Compare California to Florida for example.

So I suspect what is driving most of our response is our instinct, which is primarily to avoid death at all costs. Disease - particularly airborne disease - is to be most feared because it's incredibly difficult to stop. The only logical way to be certain to stop transmission is to avoid all contact with others. Complete lockdown. But this of course presents its own problems ...

He opposes lockdowns and masks - his own words which bar the vaccines is 'let it rip' in a vernacular. Yes we obviously don't know exactly what would happen in a UK setting eventually, but we got a very good look early March last year or in Italy or even further afield in Brazil. That's why we then behaved the way we did. It's our values to protect the elderly as opposed to let them fend for themselves (although I note 4 in 10 of those having had 1 dose are out meeting people already so not sure why we bothered).

He is championing the concept of individual liberty above the collective societal response (and the temporary constraints thereupon such liberty) to the threat with little concern for the consequences as he holds such liberty all but sacrosanct almost above the right to life itself. It's like me deciding to drive at 90 mph on the MI or through the centre of Norwich or indeed the gun lobby in the USA. The rest be damned. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Thanks for that. Very thought provoking.

Some key points come out of this i feel.

1)how did 'liberalism" become a minority and contentious attitude

2) what will we do next time a pandemic is threatened?  Does lockdown become the norm ahead of the science?

3) has the Western reaction to this eroded liberal democracy? )Maybe this is a question  we need to ask in Hong Kong )

4) would we have voted for this in March 2020 had we known that lockdown would last over a year, elections would be suspended, the national debt would skyrocket  holidays would become illegal and the NHS would still be under strain and people would still be dying a year later?

 

You say “we” but of course not even parliament voted on most of the measures until long after they had been put in place, the government using emergency powers without parliamentary approval sometimes for months at a time (early on especially).

We think it’s unthinkable because we haven’t seen much of it for seventy years here in Western Europe but it doesn’t seem a massive jump to me for some unscrupulous cabinet ministers to use emergency powers for something more sinister based on a justification like the potential for a virus to mutate. You can’t measure that in dead bodies or hospital beds, and it is always a risk. So how can you argue against it? And if parliament isn’t voting on it, how do you stop it?

 

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

. It's like me deciding to drive at 90 mph on the MI or through the centre of Norwich or indeed the gun lobby in the USA. The rest be damned. 

 

It’s not though is it.

If you drive at 90 mph through a city centre you put yourself at risk and everyone else at equal risk regardless of whether they are 5, 15, 45, or 95. Get smashed by a car doing 90 and you’re in a bad way regardless of how old or fit you are. That isn’t the case for covid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aggy said:

It’s not though is it.

If you drive at 90 mph through a city centre you put yourself at risk and everyone else at equal risk regardless of whether they are 5, 15, 45, or 95. Get smashed by a car doing 90 and you’re in a bad way regardless of how old or fit you are. That isn’t the case for covid. 

I guess it's alright to run over an OAP then  - or somebody certainly above the average death age of 82 ?

No - we all abide by some rules which inconvenience us personally but are there for the greater good. It's called civilization.

Where I do agree with him though is that an undue burden is NOW being put on the young to protect the old - hence I may have beyond the most vulnerable started the vaccines at the other end of the age scale and told the rest to shield for few weeks/months more as the end was clearly in sight. Its far easier for the retired to shield than those that need or must work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yellow Fever said:

I guess it's alright to run over an OAP then  - or somebody certainly above the average death age of 82 ?

No - we all abide by some rules which inconvenience us personally but are there for the greater good. It's called civilization.

Where I do agree with him though is that an undue burden is NOW being put on the young to protect the old - hence I may have beyond the most vulnerable started the vaccines at the other end of the age scale and told the rest to shield for few weeks/months more as the end was clearly in sight. Its far easier for the retired to shield than those that need or must work.

It’s not alright to run over anyone. That’s the point.

If you hit someone doing 90mph they probably die - doesn’t matter how old or fit they are. You cough on someone and give them covid, if they’re below the age of 50 they’re almost certainly going to survive and even if they’re older, chances are they’ll survive as well.

Havent watched the whole of his interview as its 50 minutes long and frankly I’m not that interested in what he has to say. But within the first two minutes he states that he doesn’t think a virus where 99 per cent of people who have it survive is sufficient to justify the measures which have been put in place. That’s not the same as him saying we should be allowed to drive at 90mph in a town centre and “the rest be damned”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Aggy said:

It’s not alright to run over anyone. That’s the point.

If you hit someone doing 90mph they probably die - doesn’t matter how old or fit they are. You cough on someone and give them covid, if they’re below the age of 50 they’re almost certainly going to survive and even if they’re older, chances are they’ll survive as well.

Havent watched the whole of his interview as its 50 minutes long and frankly I’m not that interested in what he has to say. But within the first two minutes he states that he doesn’t think a virus where 99 per cent of people who have it survive is sufficient to justify the measures which have been put in place. That’s not the same as him saying we should be allowed to drive at 90mph in a town centre and “the rest be damned”.

And for the record, I’m not suggest I he is right. Just that you’ve misquoted him.

What it does come back to though is hospital capacity being the main benchmark.

If hospitals are overwhelmed everyone suffers. A twenty five year old gets smashed by a bus, they die if there’s no hospital capacity to treat them. Lockdown to avoid that is “fair”. Lockdown to stop elderly people dying isn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aggy said:

And for the record, I’m not suggest I he is right. Just that you’ve misquoted him.

What it does come back to though is hospital capacity being the main benchmark.

If hospitals are overwhelmed everyone suffers. A twenty five year old gets smashed by a bus, they die if there’s no hospital capacity to treat them. Lockdown to avoid that is “fair”. Lockdown to stop elderly people dying isn’t. 

It's worth listening to the whole interview - not just the snippet taken out - which is very much 'out of context'. The interviewer actually starts to give him a hard time as his views are distinctly at odds with the norms. He basically is opposed to these constraints on personal liberty in principal - the virus and who it damages is very much a secondary issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ron obvious said:

Lord Sumption's view:

 

 

Thanks Ron. Found that an interesting 'counterpoint'. I listened right through and discovered after a few hours I've been reflecting on two things...firstly, he mentions what values we hold. In speaking about life itself he raises fundamental questions about the decisions we make, the daily risk assessments we make (or don't). Those make up a good deal of quality of life. In giving so much 'away' to the state we diminish ourselves. And he suggests it's a fine balance but one that has gone too far in his view. I can see a point here.

Many people make decisions in their health (e.g. their weight, what they eat, how much exercise they do) and often seek help when the body goes downhill or breaks down. We accept this in society (though the health service pays a price in the outputs and to an extent outcomes....think of p1ssed up people in A&E most nights....least they are where we live). Also, folk seek professional psychological help when their mental health breaks down. They rarely seek to change their habitual behaviours and self concepts until the system gets overwrought. That is liberty, a freedom too. Should the state intervene? Do we take a view that the state should be less passive? That's one of the points for me. 

Given his views on self risk and lockdown too made me think of folk who cannot choose, those who work in food processing plants, the bus drivers etc. Can they freely or easily take their own evasive measures? Easier for Lord Sumption?

Lots to think about in his thoughts on what kind of society we want though. And agree with him we do need other things to think about ....death for one and it's inevitability. As it's the whole point of life and gives meaning to living fully, its something we ought to teach in schools! (Perish the thought).

The second point is agreement with his thoughts of generational injustice. We will unfortunately see the real economic effect on younger people for years to come.

Anyway, as ever, apologies if my response becomes rambling but I felt the interview deserved comment. 

 

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, paul moy said:

There will no doubt continue to be some tough restrictions for those without vaccine passports but many countries that rely on tourism are realising that some issues are simply bigger than the virus.  Their economies are in dire straits, people are starving , and there will be even more civil unrest unless they restart tourism, so pressure is building on governments specifically in Asia to open up after a year of incessant lockdowns.  There is already talk of those with vaccine passports being given free rein before too long and I can envisage this happening around June when our lockdown should end. 

To these countries tourism is not regarded as non-essential but absolutely essential.  

 

 

I'm interested to know whether people from highly-vaccinated countries like ourselves will actually travel to countries where there has been little or no vaccination undertaken. The economies of Asia would like us to resume our holidays abroad but will our government allow it and will people take the risk? I would like to go and visit old friends in Asia this winter but personally I'm thinking to wait another eighteen months rather than take any risks of sitting on a plane for twelve hours breathing the same recycled air and then being around unvaccinated folk at the destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I'm interested to know whether people from highly-vaccinated countries like ourselves will actually travel to countries where there has been little or no vaccination undertaken. The economies of Asia would like us to resume our holidays abroad but will our government allow it and will people take the risk? I would like to go and visit old friends in Asia this winter but personally I'm thinking to wait another eighteen months rather than take any risks of sitting on a plane for twelve hours breathing the same recycled air and then being around unvaccinated folk at the destination.

I suspect you may eventually be allowed to go to a country with a higher prevalence (if they'll let you in) but vaccinated or not the issue will be coming back and what new 'variant' comes in with you. 10 days in quarantine at £1750 per person should chill you out.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I suspect you may eventually be allowed to go to a country with a higher prevalence (if they'll let you in) but vaccinated or not the issue will be coming back and what new 'variant' comes in with you. 10 days in quarantine at £1750 per person should chill you out.

How long do you envisage quarantining lasting for? I wrote yesterday that governments may be reluctant to allow non-essential international travel and I guess that quarantining regulations would be a method of control without having to impose an explicit ban. if that were the case quarantining could continue for a long time to come.

Edited by Rock The Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

He opposes lockdowns and masks - his own words which bar the vaccines is 'let it rip' in a vernacular. Yes we obviously don't know exactly what would happen in a UK setting eventually, but we got a very good look early March last year or in Italy or even further afield in Brazil. That's why we then behaved the way we did. It's our values to protect the elderly as opposed to let them fend for themselves (although I note 4 in 10 of those having had 1 dose are out meeting people already so not sure why we bothered).

He is championing the concept of individual liberty above the collective societal response (and the temporary constraints thereupon such liberty) to the threat with little concern for the consequences as he holds such liberty all but sacrosanct almost above the right to life itself. It's like me deciding to drive at 90 mph on the MI or through the centre of Norwich or indeed the gun lobby in the USA. The rest be damned. 

 

And Spain vs Portugal? And Japan? Look at the Euromomo figures. There is no discernible correlation to base any sort of model on.

I fear you have little concern for the consequences of lockdown itself. The impoverishment, economically, educationally & mentally, must be considered. These effects will likely be much worse in countries where they can't continually borrow themselves out of present trouble, as we are now doing like never before.

If you're third statement in bold is how you assess risk, then I'm afraid it's wildly different from mine. I might say I find it a touch hysterical.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

And Spain vs Portugal? And Japan? Look at the Euromomo figures. There is no discernible correlation to base any sort of model on.

I fear you have little concern for the consequences of lockdown itself. The impoverishment, economically, educationally & mentally, must be considered. These effects will likely be much worse in countries where they can't continually borrow themselves out of present trouble, as we are now doing like never before.

If you're third statement in bold is how you assess risk, then I'm afraid it's wildly different from mine. I might say I find it a touch hysterical.

I didn't think we were back to discussing if lockdowns work or not. Forget the other countries and their differing social structures, compliance and virus suppression approaches - we now have three examples of ourselves. We have learnt what works and what doesn't the hard way.

As to risks - I think you misunderstand the point of the analogies.

I don't care what risk you want or are happy to personally take - what you however don't have is the right to risk others by design or negligence. That's what the lockdown or restrictions are about - not to stop 'you' getting the virus but to prevent 'you', if unknowingly, from passing it onto others (of any age). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

How long do you envisage quarantining lasting for? I wrote yesterday that governments may be reluctant to allow non-essential international travel and I guess that quarantining regulations would be a method of control without having to impose an explicit ban. if that were the case quarantining could continue for a long time to come.

Until such time as the risks are perceived as minimal and track and trace (and isolate) is capable of controlling any outbreaks. I suspect that will likely be the early autumn for 1st world modern countries. I need to fly to many places in USA and Asia let alone the odd trade shows (all basically cancelled until 2022) but can't see it happening until then at the earliest. 

As to cheap local holidays in say Greece that's likely to open first to EU citizens (data sharing issues) before third countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

How long do you envisage quarantining lasting for? I wrote yesterday that governments may be reluctant to allow non-essential international travel and I guess that quarantining regulations would be a method of control without having to impose an explicit ban. if that were the case quarantining could continue for a long time to come.

Don’t see it myself. What is more likely to win an election - effectively pricing young and poor people out of going abroad to avoid the risk of importing something that isn’t going to do much damage to the large majority of the population, or not having quarantine?

Our own travel and events industry would be up in arms if quarantine lasts too long. I can’t see general business travel being allowed without quarantine whilst leisure travel still has to quarantine (can you imagine how the brexit majority would react if we let foreign businessmen in without quarantine and made our own citizens pay thousands for the privilege!), so if businesses have extra costs, hurdles and delays as a result of quarantine that’s risky economically as well when they just go elsewhere instead.

Our own leisure and events industry will be up in arms if quarantine stays in place for too long. Added to that, we are already seeing the government backing additional games at the euros and backing World Cup bids etc. Clearly short term measure at most IMO.  Would be surprised if you still have to quarantine (certainly in a hotel at great cost) much beyond even early 2022. 

9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I don't care what risk you want or are happy to personally take - what you however don't have is the right to risk others by design or negligence. That's what the lockdown or restrictions are about - not to stop 'you' getting the virus but to prevent 'you', if unknowingly, from passing it onto others (of any age). 

Massive shame your generation didn’t worry about that when you were all out doing whatever you want killing millions from avoidable infectious diseases over the last however many decades. I think we file that post under hypocritical codswallop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Don’t see it myself. What is more likely to win an election - effectively pricing young and poor people out of going abroad to avoid the risk of importing something that isn’t going to do much damage to the large majority of the population, or not having quarantine?

Our own travel and events industry would be up in arms if quarantine lasts too long. I can’t see general business travel being allowed without quarantine whilst leisure travel still has to quarantine (can you imagine how the brexit majority would react if we let foreign businessmen in without quarantine and made our own citizens pay thousands for the privilege!), so if businesses have extra costs, hurdles and delays as a result of quarantine that’s risky economically as well when they just go elsewhere instead.

Our own leisure and events industry will be up in arms if quarantine stays in place for too long. Added to that, we are already seeing the government backing additional games at the euros and backing World Cup bids etc. Clearly short term measure at most IMO.  Would be surprised if you still have to quarantine (certainly in a hotel at great cost) much beyond even early 2022. 

Massive shame your generation didn’t worry about that when you were all out doing whatever you want killing millions from avoidable infectious diseases over the last however many decades. I think we file that post under hypocritical codswallop.

 

What are you going on about Aggy? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing. I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

What are you going on about Aggy? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing. I think so.

Perhaps I misunderstood.


“I don't care what risk you want or are happy to personally take - what you however don't have is the right to risk others by design or negligence. That's what the lockdown or restrictions are about - not to stop 'you' getting the virus but to prevent 'you', if unknowingly, from passing it onto others (of any age). “


That to me looks like you’re saying that passing the virus on (either negligently or by design) is putting other people at risk and that you don’t think people have any right to do so. Lockdowns are needed because people don’t have the right to do that.

 If that is what you meant, then it ignores the fact you personally have probably infected hundreds if not thousands of people with something in your life. Why did you have the right to do that but people don’t have the right to do it with covid? 
 

[edit: ie; “you don’t have the right to kill people by passing on covid but I have the right to kill them by passing on flu and the rest be damned.”]

If that’s not what you meant then happy for you to clarify.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I didn't think we were back to discussing if lockdowns work or not. Forget the other countries and their differing social structures, compliance and virus suppression approaches - we now have three examples of ourselves. We have learnt what works and what doesn't the hard way.

As to risks - I think you misunderstand the point of the analogies.

I don't care what risk you want or are happy to personally take - what you however don't have is the right to risk others by design or negligence. That's what the lockdown or restrictions are about - not to stop 'you' getting the virus but to prevent 'you', if unknowingly, from passing it onto others (of any age). 

Are you sure? I thought the lockdowns have always been justified on the premise on not flooding the capacity of hospitals to handle patients. If lockdown is to prevent this virus from spreading, I wonder why we don't have lockdowns to prevent other viruses from spreading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I'm interested to know whether people from highly-vaccinated countries like ourselves will actually travel to countries where there has been little or no vaccination undertaken. The economies of Asia would like us to resume our holidays abroad but will our government allow it and will people take the risk? I would like to go and visit old friends in Asia this winter but personally I'm thinking to wait another eighteen months rather than take any risks of sitting on a plane for twelve hours breathing the same recycled air and then being around unvaccinated folk at the destination.

Cyprus opens on May 1st to tourism according to the news today, and Phuket in Thailand is vaccinating all locals to gain herd immunity in order for them to open well ahead of the rest of Thailand. The UK is open for travel from May 17th all being well. 

It appears that only people with vaccine passports will be allowed to fly unhindered, with others having to undergo a test and still face an element of quarantine on arrival. 

It's time to get on with living again  !!  😎

 

 

Edited by paul moy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/03/2021 at 09:22, Van wink said:

This debate seems to run and run, I wish we wouldnt seek simple definitive answers when the reality must surely be an intertwining complexity of issues, some of which will have a high significance in terms of deaths and others less so, but all will have surely played a part and as we have said many times this aint over yet.

Having said that, I will fall into the same trap 😀, for me the three most significant factors in deaths  1) the slowness and inadequacy of the initial government response, an early failure to acknowledge the significance of the pandemic, particulaly allowing large scale probably super spreader events to continue raising the underlying level of community spread 2) the state of health of the nation reflecting a massive failure in public health policy and social policy over many many years 3) failure to adequatey protect the most vunerable in care settings.

Point one I think

"Asked if he thought epidemiologists did not really have the ear of Government in early March last year, Prof Hayward told Times Radio: "The concept, you know, the political concept of going into lockdown and doing something like that seemed so extraordinary...

"Also, I think there was conflicting advice ... there was some advice if you go too early then people will get tired of it, but it did seem to be fairly inevitable that we would need to do something like that at some stage.

"I think the timing of it was something that they were getting conflicting advice on.

"However, I think we didn't learn our lesson from that and we didn't really learn the lesson that lockdowns are going to be way, way more effective if you start them earlier."

Prof Hayward said it is much easier to put out a very small fire than it is to put out a really big forest fire.

"When it came to the following autumn, we didn't learn that lesson," he said.

8:42am

'We left things too late',  says Prof Hayward

Looking back on the beginning of the pandemic, Prof Hayward, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at UCL, told Times Radio: "I think one of the reasons that we've had so many deaths is that we left things far too late, in terms of taking more restrictive measures.

"We should have been taking social distancing measures, if not a full lockdown then other measures that were trying to separate people much earlier.

"At that time, of course, we also didn't really have the same mechanisms to measure how much disease there was in the community, so we were largely only really seeing the tip of the iceberg of cases.

"By the time you start to see major increases in deaths then it was really too late to take action, and hence the levels got extraordinarily high before we took effective action, and it took a long, long time for them to go back down again."

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Aggy said:

Perhaps I misunderstood.


“I don't care what risk you want or are happy to personally take - what you however don't have is the right to risk others by design or negligence. That's what the lockdown or restrictions are about - not to stop 'you' getting the virus but to prevent 'you', if unknowingly, from passing it onto others (of any age). “


That to me looks like you’re saying that passing the virus on (either negligently or by design) is putting other people at risk and that you don’t think people have any right to do so. Lockdowns are needed because people don’t have the right to do that.

 If that is what you meant, then it ignores the fact you personally have probably infected hundreds if not thousands of people with something in your life. Why did you have the right to do that but people don’t have the right to do it with covid? 
 

[edit: ie; “you don’t have the right to kill people by passing on covid but I have the right to kill them by passing on flu and the rest be damned.”]

If that’s not what you meant then happy for you to clarify.

 

8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Are you sure? I thought the lockdowns have always been justified on the premise on not flooding the capacity of hospitals to handle patients. If lockdown is to prevent this virus from spreading, I wonder why we don't have lockdowns to prevent other viruses from spreading.

 

This is pure pedantry.

Let me join the dots for you.

Yes the end result is to stop the virus (for the record the Covid CV19 virus) from overwhelming the hospitals with patients. The CV19 virus is a notifiable disease & originally had a mortality of > 1% and is also much more transmissive than seasonal flu. It has killed > 120,000 in the UK already and left large numbers with long term effects (5 % with diabetes etc.). It's not a disease we can let rip or be trifled with and as a society, indeed globally, we have decided to control. It also continues to mutate. None of this is in question.

In order to stop people entering  and overwhelming hospitals we need to stop them catching the virus in the first place. More recently we have better treatments and vaccines. However, after many previous failed attempts the lockdowns have proven to be the one sure way to quickly reduce prevalence and get under control. Hopefully the vaccines will keep it there.

I'm very sure if the virus was pandemic flu -  i.e. a a bird flu - which is what previous pandemic preparations assumed the next pandemic would be  - it is very likely we'd be in exactly the same position of lockdown and quarantines as we ramped up our medical responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

 

This is pure pedantry.

Let me join the dots for you.

Yes the end result is to stop the virus (for the record the Covid CV19 virus) from overwhelming the hospitals with patients. The CV19 virus is a notifiable disease & originally had a mortality of > 1% and is also much more transmissive than seasonal flu. It has killed > 120,000 in the UK already and left large numbers with long term effects (5 % with diabetes etc.). It's not a disease we can let rip or be trifled with and as a society, indeed globally, we have decided to control. It also continues to mutate. None of this is in question.

In order to stop people entering  and overwhelming hospitals we need to stop them catching the virus in the first place. More recently we have better treatments and vaccines. However, after many previous failed attempts the lockdowns have proven to be the one sure way to quickly reduce prevalence and get under control. Hopefully the vaccines will keep it there.

I'm very sure if the virus was pandemic flu -  i.e. a a bird flu - which is what previous pandemic preparations assumed the next pandemic would be  - it is very likely we'd be in exactly the same position of lockdown and quarantines as we ramped up our medical responses.

The fact is that we cannot let fear rule our lives.  Many of us have already lost one year and we are saying that is enough.  With continuing sensible precautions we can return to a semblance of normality in June and we simply have to accept that covid will never completely go away, just as the flu never does. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Until such time as the risks are perceived as minimal and track and trace (and isolate) is capable of controlling any outbreaks. I suspect that will likely be the early autumn for 1st world modern countries. I need to fly to many places in USA and Asia let alone the odd trade shows (all basically cancelled until 2022) but can't see it happening until then at the earliest. 

As to cheap local holidays in say Greece that's likely to open first to EU citizens (data sharing issues) before third countries. 

I'm afraid those frequent flyers who spread this virus around the world will just have to suck it up, public health can't possibly be threatened by these means of business events any longer when they could be having conference calls, or do some online window shopping of various stalls at a trade show. Sorry, if that is not possible at present,  it should be, imho. Time to introduce greener ways of doing business/horse trading, we can't afford the subsidised kerosin, the various other perks aircraft operators and passengers enjoy, nor the increasing bio threat this causes.

Did you know that aircraft operators buying new aircraft are VAT exempt?

Cheap holidays on the back of others health should be ended and somebody should invent a way of exchanging air in mid flight, until the collective breathing in stops turning an aircraft into a flying petri dish, at just the right temperature, flying is a risk to public health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I didn't think we were back to discussing if lockdowns work or not. Forget the other countries and their differing social structures, compliance and virus suppression approaches - we now have three examples of ourselves. We have learnt what works and what doesn't the hard way.

As to risks - I think you misunderstand the point of the analogies.

I don't care what risk you want or are happy to personally take - what you however don't have is the right to risk others by design or negligence. That's what the lockdown or restrictions are about - not to stop 'you' getting the virus but to prevent 'you', if unknowingly, from passing it onto others (of any age). 

We have learnt nothing. Nothing more than that by, for example, removing all traffic from the roads you could stop all road deaths. I wonder why we don't do that?

By using the analogy you do you misrepresent his position. He is not an absolutist - does not believe in the perfectibility of society - which I suspect is an attitude you neither understand or agree with. He is concerned with achieving the least worst outcome for everyone, something I completely agree with.

So far as your last paragraph goes, I feel exactly the same way towards your attitude to risk. However I strongly believe in democracy - the least worst form of government - so I behave accordingly. The fact that, as far as I'm concerned, the majority have been frightened out of their wits by governments & others manipulating a primeval fear is neither here nor there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...