Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy it is you grasping at any straw you can find - herd immunity, it’ll pass by itself in the summer, “it’s just a flu and we don’t shut down the economy for it” to justify condemning hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. I’m sure others can decide what they find more disgusting.

Nobody, anywhere in this thread, has said to lock the whole country down for six months. Once again to demonstrate being “reasonable” you resort to the straw man approach.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed. People keep on telling us that everything can be controlled once we have testing, but this is simply not true.

People produce varying amounts of anti-bodies, broadly dependent upon how severe the infection was that they contracted. Some people, particularly the majority who have had it but don't realise it, seem to be naturally immune and do not produce antibodies. And yet the proposal is to test people to check for antibodies to see how far the virus has spread. Clearly, this method of testing will not tell us what we need to find out.

Similarly, in terms of testing to see whether or not a person has the virus, this also has an unacceptable failure rate and what is more, it only tells you (unreliably) that you were free of infection on the date the test was taken.

So how anyone can seriously believe that as soon as everyone has a test we can control this contagion, I really don't know!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Source?

Source?

Someone without antibodies catch the virus and spread it to others as they’d be unable to fight infection.

Once again you are justifying your position with something absolutely baseless in science.

I’m in the rather ludicrous position here of backing a Conservative Government (which I readily condemn for mistakes made to date), want it to support small business owners (which it’s trying to do) and prop up the economy (which it’s trying to do) and I’m supposedly the extremist here.

If I really wanted a laugh I’d actually back your proposals to open up the economy against scientific evidence. There’d be blood on the hands of a Conservative Government following the advice of six donors just so they can make more money while hundreds of thousands (of the poorest, most vulnerable in society die).

There would be blood on the streets such would the public anger be over this. 250,000 deaths would be millions of families affected.

The Conservatives would be unelectable for a generation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is a matter of fact that Covid-19 is a coronavirus, like MERS and SARS were, and everyone knows that coronavirus is a type of influenza.

I am not saying it's 'only' flu, I'm saying it's a type of flu. Nobody is questioning that it has a very speedy infection rate and that currently there is no vaccine.

All those deaths are truly disgusting - who would disagree? What I am saying is that until an effective vaccine is found, we cannot prevent these deaths from happening.

You've only got to look at our care homes to see the futility of the lockdown.

You may be right in saying there is broad support for the lockdown, but the cracks are appearing and most do not expect this to continue for more than another three weeks or so. The position will look rather different at the end of that time, and once company after company goes bankrupt, sending people to the unemployment register, there will be a sea change of opinion.

Despite everything you claim, jfman, the government cannot afford to keep paying the nation's wages and they have pretty well acknowledged that. Faced with not having any money coming in, people will soon want to be getting back to work.

Of course, in your vision of the near future, they will just shrug their shoulders and say "All right, then".

Crazy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What is crazy is that you don't get something very very simple, By having the lockdown you LESSEN the amount of deaths than if we were to carry on life as normal. It's a very simple fact yet one you do not seem to comprehend for some reason.

As you say, we can't prevent deaths. but we can LIMIT them

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you delay an “inevitable” death until after a vaccine it’s naturally prevented. You also make the false assumption that we could supply a universal and equal supply of healthcare services at all times which we do not.

It demonstrates no such thing. Indeed, the infection will have spread into care homes in many cases prior to the lockdown beginning. For many, it will be too late, however mistakes of the past are no reason to sacrifice more people.

That’s why the Governments and Central Banks need to step up.

I’ve seen nowhere where they have said they are unable to support the economy through the crisis.

Nobody wants to go out in the middle of an uncontrolled pandemic and die for the minimum wage Old Boy, you are frankly being ridiculous if you think that is the case.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

I can only believe Old Boy is deliberately part of a misinformation campaign of some sort to wilfully misrepresent the facts so often.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Incorrect. Coronavirus is not a type of influenza - you’ve got it back to front.

Influenza is a type of coronavirus. Flu, MERS and SARS are all caused by coronaviruses.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, you don't. You just delay these deaths. As soon as the lockdown is lifted, the infection rates will increase again. They have already seen that in Germany.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

Accepted.

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Your first sentence I do not dispute. What you are ignoring is my main point here, which is that you cannot sustain a lockdown until the end of the summer, let alone the end of the year, which is the earliest possible time that a vaccine will become available.

Last weekend was evidence that a growing number of people are ignoring the rules. It was very noticeable that there were quite a lot more cars on the road as well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no doubt some are ignoring the rules as the Police has said the roads are definitely busier down here in our city since Monday.

It beggars belief how some of these shops get round the essential rule as one example was a spa that was sold to a customer who went in there.

Now l am not a expert but surely that is not classed as a essential purchase in my view.

That is just one example.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, no, simple mathematics tells us you're completely wrong.


lets say over an 18 month period of time with no lockdown in place there is an average death rate of 1000 per month giving us a total deaths count of 18,000

Now, lets say in 18 month period there is a three one month periods of lockdown which changes the death rate to 500 deaths per month. the months out of lock down the death rate stays as above at the initial example. 1000 per month. Do the maths?

Now, start using the something near the figures that are being presented to us on a daily basis and just think about how many lives are being saved over that time period.

We are going to be in and out of some sort of lockdown until if and when a successful vaccine.

Oh, and with regards to your earlier post about older people not being prepared to endure lockdown. Quite simply. Tough s**t, either do it, or face criminal proceedings.

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------



Oh Den.... ;)

You're allowed to buy luxury goods including alcohol. 'Essential purchases' went out of the window some weeks ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now that is why l did not mention alcohol Mr T as because a lot of it is sold in the supermarkets and its pretty hard to stop customers buying it in there.;)

l also did not want to upset those on this forum who like the odd tipple or two either.;)

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------

As one forum member succinctly put the other day its not about "me" or "me" or "me" but more a case of making sacrifices for the greater good of this country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

you've never not been allowed to buy alcohol?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thankfully.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Again this is demonstrably false. Either linked to the elimination of the virus, containment, herd immunity or a vaccine whichever theory you use relies upon keeping demand for intensive care facilities below supply and every potential infection of a vulnerable person you push the other side of the threshold is a life saved. Added into the mix is our daily increase in capacity to test, trace, isolate and shortly the roll out of a contact tracing app.

Again this is entirely subjective and not evidence led. People straying out into open public places on a sunny weekend does not constitute civil disobedience or not adhering to the rule as they stand.

Neither is your “noticeable” increase in the number of cars on the road.