Re: Coronavirus
 

You accuse me of not replying to the points you make in your posts (which is false, by the way) and when I respond to each point, you complain because that makes it difficult for you to respond. So you didn’t!

---------- Post added at 19:10 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

At last, a grudging acceptance that anything other than herd immunity is, ultimately, futile. Such an agreement is never going to happen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

After killing 50 million people (and infecting 500 million, out of a world population of 1.8 million) - so your example is something that kills nearly 3% of the world's population?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are so right. I mean, how many repeated failed experiments does anyone need to have before admitting that the experiment has, well, failed?

As for the NHS, I have raised this very point with Sir John Redwood, and he is taking this forward. Given that in my area the infection rate is comparatively low, I’d like to know where all the GPS and nurses have gone. And if I can get served in a shop with the aid of a screen between us, why can we not have face to face doctor appointments? Seems to me that this is health and safety gone mad.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy has been clear since the start in fairness. He values human lives at less than the fraction of a percentage point on GDP this would lessen out economic decline by.

Here's one for Old Boy how deadly does a virus have to be before you put health first (bearing in mind your twisted view that there actually is a choice - there isn't). 1%? 5%? 10%?

What about longer term health implications - 10% of the population. 25%?

Or am I right that you'd never put health first?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who cares what other countries are doing? We want a solution, not a lot of pussy-footing around.

It was by following what other countries are doing which has got us into this mess.

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

Not exactly, Hugh, you haven’t quite got it. My solution was to protect the elderly and the vulnerable, remember? The healthy population has little to worry about, so why lock them down?

We have tried the scattergun approach, and look where we are now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's actually British exceptionalism that got us into that mess. We looked at Italy and decided that wouldn't happen to us.

But continue in your deluded reality. I'm enjoying reading it.

Another question - minimum wage worker - 48 - COPD and diabetes. You claim you want to shield them - would you support the Government paying them to stay at home while this farce played out?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe you should try listening to the arguments and responding meaningfully to them instead of arguing and putting words into the mouths of others in an attempt to skew the arguments.

Lockdowns are still resulting in deaths and prolonging the life of the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unless you put the vulnerable (GOV.UK quoted 2.2 million) in almost totally sterile conditions (which include elderly, immune disorders, severe asthma, COPD, people on cancer meds, etc.,) how do you stop the carers/families infecting them?

Could you cite evidence, please, showing where "The healthy population has little to worry about" - what about long COVID?

We are 9 months into a pandemic, and we don't know how this will affect people in medium to long term, but your approach seems to be "it'll be fine" - I haven't seen you provide evidence to support this?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who so decided? From the time we saw what was happening in Wuhan, we all had a fear of what was coming down the line if it got out of China.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not a single word of this post is true, such to the extent I do not know where to start. I

've told you, many times, how wrong you are and what the solutions are. However, you continue to leap from pipe dream to pipe dream, and ignore the tried and tested playbook on managing a pandemic.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

That'd odd, because that's not my recollection. It wouldn't happen to us. Multi-generational households, different healthcare systems and myth to myth ignoring the imminent and obvious reality. A bit like now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is absolutely no evidence that long COVID is going to cause problems in a significant number of cases. Yes, it is there, but this is all about taking the least worst option.

By the way, if you are trying to tell us we can’t protect the vulnerable, then I have to ask - what is the point of a lockdown?

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

Is that what you thought, jfman? Well, in which case you were wrong, weren’t you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I fail to see how you've came to that conclusion. Maybe best to put the keyboard down for a bit since 'herd immunity' continues to be a scientifically discredited model for dealing with Covid-19 you probably don't have much insight to offer over the next few months.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------

:D

Tell me this is a joke question. Please you can't be serious. Just listen to your beloved Boris - he explains it quite clearly by his usual standards.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is experts for you.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

You might have told me ‘how wrong I am’, but you don’t answer my responses because you cannot. You just want to sneer and make trouble.

I don’t know whether you believe what you are saying or whether you are just sniping.

I do understand the arguments for lockdowns. However, my point is that they don’t work and they cause additional disruption, pain and deaths in their wake. But you don’t address these concerns.

If we could rely on a vaccine by the end of the year, you might have an argument. But that is extremely unlikely, and jfman’s normal refrain is that we should just continue with a lockdown. Forever....

I can’t see many people agreeing with that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You evidently do not, hence asking the question a mere two posts ago.

Please find a single post where I advocated this. I'll wait...

I don't know how your arguments benefit by obviously misrepresenting mine. I've been consistent since February while you've leapt from pipe dream to pipe dream. While many disagree with me, they'll all at least agree I've been consistent and I've never said what you portray above.