Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

Mick 08-10-2020 15:00

Coronavirus
 
New thread to continue the discussion on Covid-19 (Coronavirus).

Sephiroth 08-10-2020 15:13

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 

Although I'm in an at risk group, I'm moving towards the idea of letting the virus rip to achieve herd immunity. I can take measures to minimise my own risk (without giving up my trips to Waitrose, Wokingham).

Why am I not yet fully convinced? There isn't enough evidence as to the longevity of antibodies, the number in the system, how many it needs to fight off the virus, etc.

My fear is that it may take some time for these questions to be answered during which time the economy might tank beyond the point of no reasonable return.

The government is obviously wrestling with this and may even think that the economy is more important than an on-balance calculation as regards CV.

Very difficult for them.



tweetiepooh 08-10-2020 15:35

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Yup - misquoting the dear old beeb - the health department wants more controls/lockdowns to prevent disease spread and protect demand on NHS
Number 11 want to get the economy moving, get trading/spending back, get jobs/companies working.
Number 10 has to balance it all.

downquark1 08-10-2020 15:38

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36053044)
Yup - misquoting the dear old beeb - the health department wants more controls/lockdowns to prevent disease spread and protect demand on NHS
Number 11 want to get the economy moving, get trading/spending back, get jobs/companies working.
Number 10 has to balance it all.

As it should be. Not "Boris descends into hell and fails to defeat death, what a shambles. Jesus quoted as calling him a loser"

1andrew1 08-10-2020 15:47

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36053046)
As it should be. Not "Boris descends into hell and fails to defeat death, what a shambles. Jesus quoted as calling him a loser"

There's elements of the government's approach that can sadly be called a shambles though.

downquark1 08-10-2020 15:54

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053047)
There's elements of the government's approach that can sadly be called a shambles though.

Oh I agree, just not everything.

nomadking 08-10-2020 15:56

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053047)
There's elements of the government's approach that can sadly be called a shambles though.

Compared to where?
How are other parts of the world doing? Eg Wales, Scotland, France, Spain, and all the other countries on the "quarantine on return" list?

The only countries that are doing "well" are ones that were never badly affected in the first place. The less people that are bringing it into the country, the less cases will happen in that country.

Chris 08-10-2020 16:03

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Nippy Sturgeon’s Covid-free strategy (loudly applauded over the summer, especially by Scottish nationalists and English people who know no better but assume she’s some sort of socialist goddess) is in tatters. There is mounting evidence that the R number here is now higher than anywhere else in the UK despite her supposedly more cautious approach to lifting restrictions.

I wonder whether we’ll ever get a satisfactory explanation as to why she threw Tory/Labour-voting Aberdeen into lockdown in the summer with an infection rate only a fraction of that now seen in nationalist Glasgow, which has been pretty much getting away with it until now. :scratch:

downquark1 08-10-2020 16:05

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36053052)
There is mounting evidence that the R number here is now higher than anywhere else in the UK despite her supposedly more cautious approach to lifting restrictions.

Given the population density of Scotland that is a scientific wonder. On the other hand they all have vitamin D deficiency up there.

jfman 08-10-2020 16:07

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053051)
Compared to where?
How are other parts of the world doing? Eg Wales, Scotland, France, Spain, and all the other countries on the "quarantine on return" list?

The only countries that are doing "well" are ones that were never badly affected in the first place. The less people that are bringing it into the country, the less cases will happen in that country.

Arguably those "never badly affected" implemented all the appropriate measures you should do in a pandemic to get the virus under control.

Chris 08-10-2020 16:08

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36053053)
Given the population density of Scotland that is a scientific wonder. On the other hand they all have vitamin D deficiency up there.

The average population density of Scotland is somewhat meaningless given how much of it is barely habitable mountains. ;)

More than 60% of the population lives in the central belt, where the present number of infections, while only around half of that in Liverpool or Manchester, is showing signs of very rapid increase. The additional measures coming into effect this weekend are meant to head off a possible doubling of cases by the end of the month.

jfman 08-10-2020 16:10

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36053053)
Given the population density of Scotland that is a scientific wonder. On the other hand they all have vitamin D deficiency up there.

In fairness it's the population centres that are seeing the rises.

The R number from a low rate of infection only needs a couple of major outbreaks to rocket. If you're trundling along at thousands of cases per day consistently R is closer to 1.

Mad Max 08-10-2020 16:24

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
I posted this in the recently closed thread.


I know its the Sun, but we could all do with something to give us some hope.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/128728...jab-christmas/

1andrew1 08-10-2020 16:36

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36053049)
Oh I agree, just not everything.

For sure. On the other thread, hundreds of pages back, people have summarised what the government's done well eg furlough and what it's done less well eg track and trace.

downquark1 08-10-2020 16:38

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053062)
For sure. On the other thread, hundreds of pages back, people have summarised what the government's done well eg furlough and what it's done less well eg track and trace.

That is true, but I would say that a robust track and trace program is difficult to implement on short notice. And I worry we are too densely populated for it to be effective.

nomadking 08-10-2020 16:55

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053054)
Arguably those "never badly affected" implemented all the appropriate measures you should do in a pandemic to get the virus under control.

So where in the past explorers have been blamed for introducing new infectious diseases to a newly found area, the reason that population didn't previously have the disease was because they had taken "appropriate measures"?:rolleyes: Undeniable fact and just plain common sense, that the number of cases is directly connected to the number of people introducing it into the country and giving it to others.
Not a lot governments can do about this sort of thing.
Link
Quote:

Inspectors have demanded improvements from a hospital after a report highlighted a number of failings over Covid-19 precautions.
The Care Quality Commission inspected the emergency department and medical wards at the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford, Kent, on 11 August.
Staff were seen to be wearing masks incorrectly, not using hand sanitiser and not adhering to social distancing.
Link
Quote:

Its preliminary analysis shows there was “a very large number of importations due to inbound international travel”, with around a third of cases estimated to have come from Spain.
The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, states the coronavirus outbreak did not begin from one source – more commonly known as “patient zero” – but that there were at least 1,356 separate points of origin, which scientists warned is likely to be an underestimate.
If another country had just 13 "separate points of origin" then they would've had in the region of 1/100th of the number the cases the UK had.

Mick 08-10-2020 17:18

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
BREAKING: Coronavirus: UK records 17,540 new cases - 3,000 more than yesterday

Damien 08-10-2020 17:20

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Getting pretty quite escalations now..

Mad Max 08-10-2020 17:22

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36053069)
BREAKING: Coronavirus: UK records 17,540 new cases - 3,000 more than yesterday


This is down to more testing.

jfman 08-10-2020 17:27

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053071)
This is down to more testing.

:D I'm guessing this isn't serious.

Damien 08-10-2020 17:29

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053071)
This is down to more testing.

Nah, the testing has been static for a while now: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/testing

Mad Max 08-10-2020 17:31

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053072)
:D I'm guessing this isn't serious.


My point being ( and yes I should have said):D I'm wondering how high the infection rates actually were back in March / April, when we didn't have testing.

jfman 08-10-2020 17:32

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053074)
My point being ( and yes I should have said):D I'm wondering how high the infection rates actually were back in March / April, when we didn't have testing.

Okay that's a fair point.

jonbxx 08-10-2020 18:46

Re: Coronavirus NEW
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053074)
My point being ( and yes I should have said):D I'm wondering how high the infection rates actually were back in March / April, when we didn't have testing.

Yeah, if we look at hospitalisations, we're at around 17% of the peak earlier in the year (I picked hopsitalisations as deaths is not a good indicator as we're getting better at treatment). Extrapolating to testing we would expect over 100,000 cases per day if the testing rate was the same back in March/April time. Yikes!

Mick 08-10-2020 21:08

Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: Europe reported 96,996 new cases, the highest total for the region ever recorded by the World Health Organisation.

Global deaths rose by 5,514 to a total of 1.05 million.

The previous WHO record for new cases was 330,340 on Oct. 2. The agency reported a record 12,393 deaths on April 17.

As a region, Europe is now reporting more cases than India, Brazil or the United States.

https://www.reuters.com/article/heal...source=twitter

Pierre 08-10-2020 21:36

Re: Coronavirus
 
And the death rate remains the same.

Since the rise in infections started 3 weeks ago now, death rates still below 100.

Since then the infection rate is now 4x that what it was three weeks ago and given that 10 days is the intervention threshold, really, if deaths, hospital admissions and ventilations have not increased dramatically by this time next week is anyone going to have a lightbulb moment?

nomadking 08-10-2020 22:10

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053094)
And the death rate remains the same.

Since the rise in infections started 3 weeks ago now, death rates still below 100.

Since then the infection rate is now 4x that what it was three weeks ago and given that 10 days is the intervention threshold, really, if deaths, hospital admissions and ventilations have not increased dramatically by this time next week is anyone going to have a lightbulb moment?

So 637 UK Hospital Admissions daily and rising, are nothing?
Link

Quote:

The most recent daily figure for England shows 524 people admitted to hospital with Covid-19 - double the number two weeks ago.
On Thursday, Health Minister Nadine Dorries predicted hospitals would reach a "critical" point within 10 days.

jfman 08-10-2020 22:44

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053094)
And the death rate remains the same.

Since the rise in infections started 3 weeks ago now, death rates still below 100.

Since then the infection rate is now 4x that what it was three weeks ago and given that 10 days is the intervention threshold, really, if deaths, hospital admissions and ventilations have not increased dramatically by this time next week is anyone going to have a lightbulb moment?

The percentage increases in all of those things are high. That means we are only a matter of days/weeks before crisis without intervention. There’s no ‘living with the virus’ to be seen here.

Paul 09-10-2020 15:42

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053094)
And the death rate remains the same.

Since the rise in infections started 3 weeks ago now, death rates still below 100.

and lets not forget, the UK 'death rate' is nonsense anyway.

As the reports keep telling you
Quote:

A further xx people died after testing positive for the virus within 28 days.
They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

papa smurf 09-10-2020 15:46

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36053174)
and lets not forget, the UK 'death rate' is nonsense anyway.

As the reports keep telling you

They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

The truth wouldn't frighten the gullible and little children would it.

Mad Max 09-10-2020 15:53

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36053174)
and lets not forget, the UK 'death rate' is nonsense anyway.

As the reports keep telling you

They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.


I've been saying this since it started, absolute disgrace.

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053175)
The truth wouldn't frighten the gullible and little children would it.

Spot on, papa.

downquark1 09-10-2020 15:53

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36053174)

They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

The odds of dying from a car crash within 28 days of any particular point in time is quite low, so you can mostly discount it.

The question of comorbidities makes it an academic question. If I'm running from a lion and having covid makes me unable to outrun the lion, is Covid responsible for my death or is the lion?

Compare situations:

Patient B has diabetes then catches covid and dies, they could have lived another 60 years so surely that can be blamed on covid

Patient A has cancer then catches covid and dies, they were probably going to die in the next year or 2 anyway. So is it fair to count that as covid?


Basically they would have to ask doctors to decide the reason of death and they would have to make some educated guess and this just side steps that whole thing.

nomadking 09-10-2020 15:59

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36053174)
and lets not forget, the UK 'death rate' is nonsense anyway.

As the reports keep telling you

They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

Well the number of hospital admissions and those on ventilators isn't exactly small, and is increasing.

Link

Quote:

Sir Mark Walport, a member of Sage told the BBC: "On the 19 March, just before the first set of widespread restrictions, hospital admissions were 586 in England and on the 6 October they were 524.
"So we are very close to the situation at the beginning of March."
Quote:

But this masks a stark regional picture - with cases doubling around twice as fast in the North West, Yorkshire and the West Midlands compared to the whole of England.
It also shows there has been an eight-fold increase in cases in people over 65 as the epidemic surge that started in younger age groups bleeds into the rest of the population.
Over 65s are at greater risk of more severe symtoms and death.

jfman 09-10-2020 16:11

Re: Coronavirus
 
The Great Barrington declaration has some famous signatories.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronvair...etter-12099947

Dr Harold Shipman is very apt.

downquark1 09-10-2020 16:24

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053175)
The truth wouldn't frighten the gullible and little children would it.

This is fair to an extent, the experts look at the number but have in their head "5% of those are false positives, 15% of those would have died anyway etc" (these are made up numbers)

So they can make some educated decision. The public just see the number and go "AAAAH BIG DEATH NUMBER".

TheDaddy 09-10-2020 17:10

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36053174)

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

You can if you want, just check the number of deaths last year with the ONS, compare it to this year and the difference, roughly, is the damage inflicted by the virus

Taf 09-10-2020 18:01

Re: Coronavirus
 
Fraud, the tip of a huge iceberg

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54472324

Mad Max 10-10-2020 01:32

Re: Coronavirus
 
Some pub owners are not too happy with the female version of Hitler.


https://twitter.com/capitalscotnews/...890952194?s=21

jfman 10-10-2020 09:05

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053226)
Some pub owners are not too happy with the female version of Hitler.


https://twitter.com/capitalscotnews/...890952194?s=21

I’m sure they’ll be equally enraged at Boris when he closes pubs in vast areas of England.

Seperately there’s a a few stories floating around about Sweden’s success story:

Quote:

There are three big new stories out on Sweden, in Science, the Economist and the NYT. They show that:

Sweden’s overall Covid fatality rate so far has been on a par with America’s and roughly ten times that of Norway and Finland;
Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, expected to see Covid antibodies in 40 per cent of Stockholm county residents by the end of May but the actual level was 6 per cent;
Not locking down did not save Sweden’s economy, which shrank faster that its neighbours’ in the second quarter of the year, by 8.3 per cent.
More than 40 per cent of Covid deaths in Sweden have been in care homes, suggesting a strategy of shielding the vulnerable while letting the rest of the country stick to business as usual didn’t work either.
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/20...ensemaker-9oct

papa smurf 10-10-2020 11:30

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053226)
Some pub owners are not too happy with the female version of Hitler.


https://twitter.com/capitalscotnews/...890952194?s=21

Time for a revolution-i'm ready to take over, Generalisimo papa won't let you down.

pip08456 10-10-2020 12:02

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36053190)
You can if you want, just check the number of deaths last year with the ONS, compare it to this year and the difference, roughly, is the damage inflicted by the virus

That's not really true. 2018 and 2019 had fewer deaths than preceding years, hence the deadwood theory.

nomadking 10-10-2020 12:12

Re: Coronavirus
 
It cannot be denied that there have been many deaths of people who were not elderly, in care homes, or would've been expected to die from regular seasonal flu.

jfman 10-10-2020 12:21

Re: Coronavirus
 
There’ll also be less deaths from other causes - road deaths, etc. So to equate the two years isn’t as straightforward as it seems. Obviously, it’ll suit the “it’s just a bad cold” narrative to pretend that 2020 was no different to 2019.

Hugh 10-10-2020 14:09

Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
ONS are also giving 5 year averages on their stats.

Quote:

Looking at the year-to-date (using the most up-to-date data we have available), the number of deaths up to 25 September 2020 was 453,771, which is 53,888 more than the five-year average. Of the deaths registered by 25 September, 52,856 mentioned COVID-19 on the death certificate, 11.6% of all deaths in England and Wales.

Looking at the year-to-date for England and Wales separately, the number of deaths for England was 425,995, which is 52,345 (14.0%) more than the five-year average. Of these, 50,195 (11.8%) mentioned COVID-19. In Wales, the number of deaths up to 25 September 2020 was 27,114, which is 2,049 (8.2%) more than the five-year average; of these, 2,587 deaths (9.5%) mentioned COVID-19.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...5september2020

OLD BOY 11-10-2020 18:19

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053181)


Over 65s are at greater risk of more severe symtoms and death.

Frankly, I’d rather take my chances living my life rather than cowering in fear indoors for the rest of my life.

If people want a lock-down, they just need to lock down. No need to rely on the government to tell them to do it. Leave the rest of us alone.

The second wave is good evidence that lock-downs only slow the virus, they don’t eliminate it. How many more waves must we endure before people wake up to this reality?

jfman 11-10-2020 19:17

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053319)
Frankly, I’d rather take my chances living my life rather than cowering in fear indoors for the rest of my life.

If people want a lock-down, they just need to lock down. No need to rely on the government to tell them to do it. Leave the rest of us alone.

The second wave is good evidence that lock-downs only slow the virus, they don’t eliminate it. How many more waves must we endure before people wake up to this reality?

Hahahaha.

Is this the latest. Calling everyone scared?

It’ll go away next summer, it just wasn’t warm enough this one. :D

You’re free to put yourself at risk as often as you please. Get an all day ticket for public transport and let us know how you get on.

The answer to your question at the end is as many lockdowns as it takes to get a vaccine.

This was of course completely avoidable by going for the New Zealand or South Korean approaches. We are the fifth richest country in the world but “it’s too hard”. :rolleyes:

papa smurf 11-10-2020 19:22

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053319)
Frankly, I’d rather take my chances living my life rather than cowering in fear indoors for the rest of my life.

If people want a lock-down, they just need to lock down. No need to rely on the government to tell them to do it. Leave the rest of us alone.

The second wave is good evidence that lock-downs only slow the virus, they don’t eliminate it. How many more waves must we endure before people wake up to this reality?

You're not on your own there.

jfman 11-10-2020 19:25

Re: Coronavirus
 
Anyone who wants to contribute to herd immunity is more than free to go and hang around their nearest student halls. If you think 50-70% getting infected is a good thing, but want it to be other people and not you, then it’s more than a crass double standard.

Under the theory everyone who gets infected reduces opportunities for onward infection and the R number will decrease over time. It should be incentivised among those who believe it.

Sephiroth 11-10-2020 20:12

Re: Coronavirus
 
From my layman's perspective, problem is that nobody is immune at the moment.

Those with antibodies can still be infected and be infectious. Their degree of resistance may only have a minor effect but unless everyone is tested once a fortnight or summat, we can't really bring this under control nor really know what's going on.


Paul 11-10-2020 20:27

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053323)
If you think 50-70% getting infected is a good thing.

Well students are the most likely to suffer little more than an irritation.

Nottinghamshire is now going to suffer the latest parnoia rules just because Nottingham itself just got invaded by 50,000+ students last week [from all around the country] tons of who came back positive when tested, most had no clue until tested, they had zero symptoms. None are seriously ill, if ill at all.

Quote:

The city's director of public health said three-quarters of the 2,532 new positive cases in the city in the past seven days have been among people aged 18 to 22.

jfman 11-10-2020 20:37

Re: Coronavirus
 
That’s my point, Paul.

A lot of people keen to infect others, not so keen on it themselves. They’d no doubt voluntarily shield while it all plays out, while those in low paid and precarious work get to risk their health. It’s a laughable double standard. For an immunity unproven.

To reach 50-70% it’s almost impossible for it not to reach high risk groups at some stage - so no reason for anyone, whatever their age, who believes in this policy to not do their bit. Even those at risk still stand a better chance than a coin toss. Rather die free than live a prisoner, as they say.

OLD BOY 11-10-2020 21:37

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053321)
Hahahaha.

Is this the latest. Calling everyone scared?

It’ll go away next summer, it just wasn’t warm enough this one. :D

You’re free to put yourself at risk as often as you please. Get an all day ticket for public transport and let us know how you get on.

The answer to your question at the end is as many lockdowns as it takes to get a vaccine.

This was of course completely avoidable by going for the New Zealand or South Korean approaches. We are the fifth richest country in the world but “it’s too hard”. :rolleyes:

Well, what else is it? Lockdown after lockdown after lockdown and still the virus remains.

Let’s get this over and done with. If you want a lockdown, be my guest. I won’t be joining you.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:35 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053323)
Anyone who wants to contribute to herd immunity is more than free to go and hang around their nearest student halls. If you think 50-70% getting infected is a good thing, but want it to be other people and not you, then it’s more than a crass double standard.

Under the theory everyone who gets infected reduces opportunities for onward infection and the R number will decrease over time. It should be incentivised among those who believe it.

People should be free to make their own decisions. Personally, I will be steering clear of the universities.

Mr K 11-10-2020 21:40

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053336)

People should be free to make their own decisions. Personally, I will be steering clear of the universities.

Don't think they'd let you in anyway OB, unless there's a BSc in Talking Twaddle ;)

OLD BOY 11-10-2020 21:42

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053330)
That’s my point, Paul.

A lot of people keen to infect others, not so keen on it themselves. They’d no doubt voluntarily shield while it all plays out, while those in low paid and precarious work get to risk their health. It’s a laughable double standard. For an immunity unproven.

To reach 50-70% it’s almost impossible for it not to reach high risk groups at some stage - so no reason for anyone, whatever their age, who believes in this policy to not do their bit. Even those at risk still stand a better chance than a coin toss. Rather die free than live a prisoner, as they say.

No, the point is that the healthy population is pretty well immune to this virus and so it is better that they build up an immunity than having vulnerable people put in that position.

Nobody is advocating deliberate infection. Once again you are twisting what people say out of all recognition. You’re very good at that,I will admit.

jfman 11-10-2020 22:08

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053336)
Well, what else is it? Lockdown after lockdown after lockdown and still the virus remains.

Let’s get this over and done with. If you want a lockdown, be my guest. I won’t be joining you.

And if you wish to get infected with Covid-19, be my guest.

Quote:

People should be free to make their own decisions. Personally, I will be steering clear of the universities.
Ah, you want others to make up the herd. Gotcha!

---------- Post added at 21:01 ---------- Previous post was at 21:00 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053340)
No, the point is that the healthy population is pretty well immune to this virus and so it is better that they build up an immunity than having vulnerable people put in that position.

Nobody is advocating deliberate infection. Once again you are twisting what people say out of all recognition. You’re very good at that,I will admit.

Literally achieving herd immunity in the manner you propose is deliberate infection. So you’re not personally keen on infection, despite the fact that for the vast, vast, majority have little/no symptoms. Thanks for clarifying, and vindicating my view that you are exhibiting fairly grotesque double standards.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36053339)
Don't think they'd let you in anyway OB, unless there's a BSc in Talking Twaddle ;)

He’d get nowhere in economics, certainly. Killing off your customers is bad for business. Unless you run an undertakers.

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:02 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053340)
No, the point is that the healthy population is pretty well immune to this virus and so it is better that they build up an immunity than having vulnerable people put in that position.

Nobody is advocating deliberate infection. Once again you are twisting what people say out of all recognition. You’re very good at that,I will admit.

It’s you that have described this as just a flu. What’s up, are you scared?

Paul 11-10-2020 23:31

Re: Coronavirus
 
Lets stop making personal jibes now, before I have to step in.

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 08:48

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053342)

Literally achieving herd immunity in the manner you propose is deliberate infection. So you’re not personally keen on infection, despite the fact that for the vast, vast, majority have little/no symptoms. Thanks for clarifying, and vindicating my view that you are exhibiting fairly grotesque double standards.

What you fail to address is the fact that the method I have described will reduce deaths as well as protect the economy. You have just used pure emotion to try to twist everything and to be argumentative.

The key is to protect the vulnerable, particularly those in care homes. Most of the healthy population will scarcely get any symptoms at all. The medical experts are now coming around to this view themselves.

---------- Post added at 07:48 ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053342)
It’s you that have described this as just a flu. What’s up, are you scared?

Many people were describing this as flu in the early days. Technically it is not flu, but actually it is very similar in many ways. If I remember correctly, SARS was called flu as well. It is a layman’s term. It’s killing more people than our normal flu strains because there has not been immunity built up and there is no vaccine.

Scared? If I was scared I wouldn’t be doing the school runs and living my life as normally as possible.

jfman 12-10-2020 09:09

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053364)
What you fail to address is the fact that the method I have described will reduce deaths as well as protect the economy. You have just used pure emotion to try to twist everything and to be argumentative.

The key is to protect the vulnerable, particularly those in care homes. Most of the healthy population will scarcely get any symptoms at all. The medical experts are now coming around to this view themselves.

Can you evidence that it’ll reduce deaths and protect the economy?

No. It’s entirely speculative. Sweden’s economy is tanking, they’re now also heading into a second wave like everyone else.

I haven’t seen any scientist join the “herd immunity” camp. The Great Barrington declaration was funded by an economic think tank, signed by some physios and experts in “alternative medicine”. In addition to the evidence above can you find me scientists who were in favour of lockdown restrictions now saying to let it rip through society?

Quote:

Many people were describing this as flu in the early days. Technically it is not flu, but actually it is very similar in many ways. If I remember correctly, SARS was called flu as well. It is a layman’s term. It’s killing more people than our normal flu strains because there has not been immunity built up and there is no vaccine.

Scared? If I was scared I wouldn’t be doing the school runs and living my life as normally as possible.
“As possible” is an interesting caveat.

Fundamentally you don’t want to be in the 50-70%, but are happy for people in low paid, precarious work on public transport, retail, hospitality and even some NHS workers to put themselves at risk for a policy that is a) unproven in medical terms and b) doesn’t protect the economy because like you nobody wants to be in the 50-70%.

Even just last week there was a case of a 74 year old, obese man with underlying health conditions staging a miraculous recovery with experimental treatments. Every day treatments are getting better and we get closer to a vaccine.

If it’s really about the economy why aren’t you advocating funding an effective public health response and the tried and tested measures from South Korea, New Zealand and other south east Asian countries?

If there’s one thing OB it’s that you’ve been ignoring the inevitable throughout this crisis and the longer significant numbers of people like you deny it the longer and more painful in health and economic terms this will be.

Maggy 12-10-2020 09:47

Re: Coronavirus
 
Too many keyboard experts all over the internet.:(

heero_yuy 12-10-2020 10:04

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Quote from The Sun: Companies collecting track-and-trace data for pubs and restaurants are harvesting customer information to sell for profit, it has been claimed.

They have clauses in their terms and conditions stating they can use details scanned in by customers for other means.

The small-print warnings mean data can be shared with third parties.

Customers typically scan QR codes to give names, addresses and phone numbers — unaware their data is passed on to marketing companies and insurance brokers.

The privacy policy of one company used by a London restaurant chain says it stores data for 25 years.

Legal experts have warned of a “privacy crisis”.
Glad my phone doesn't "do" QR codes so the local just takes a name and phone number.

I wonder how much other incidental data is being collected and shared around?

1andrew1 12-10-2020 10:07

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36053368)
Too many keyboard experts all over the internet.:(

Isn't that the definition of a forum? ;)

BenMcr 12-10-2020 10:57

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36053369)
Glad my phone doesn't "do" QR codes so the local just takes a name and phone number.

I wonder how much other incidental data is being collected and shared around?

That is likely to be only be for third party options, rather than the NHS QR Codes.

A pub I went to on Friday had both the NHS QR code on the wall and their own registration site on the booking confirmation and menus.

tweetiepooh 12-10-2020 11:19

Re: Coronavirus
 
People do keep on about the success in New Zealand especially (the Asian countries are a bit different as the public behaviour to government is different). But geographically New Zealand is in a fortunate position. They don't have boat loads of people trying to get in across a small body of water any one of whom could bring in the virus past a border lockdown.
They also have a much smaller population (half population of Greater London - 2012) than us and is a bit bigger in land area. Makes it easier to lockdown hard for a short period and clear out the virus and keep it out.

jfman 12-10-2020 11:29

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36053372)
People do keep on about the success in New Zealand especially (the Asian countries are a bit different as the public behaviour to government is different). But geographically New Zealand is in a fortunate position. They don't have boat loads of people trying to get in across a small body of water any one of whom could bring in the virus past a border lockdown.
They also have a much smaller population (half population of Greater London - 2012) than us and is a bit bigger in land area. Makes it easier to lockdown hard for a short period and clear out the virus and keep it out.

The population size is a red herring. Divide the UK into the nations and English local authorities. Get each to manage theirs down to zero then open up with the rest of the country when they do. We've got far more resource than New Zealand to throw at such a task, if there was the political will and acceptance that the solution will cost money.

Public behaviour is often touted - people more likely to adhere to rules etc. Well if people open their eyes they should see that's a small price to pay for a semblance of normality. It'd also get the internal economy back on it's feet sooner.

But no, it's too hard/too costly continues to be the mantra. I'm sure when we reflect on the costs in a few years it'd have been a relative bargain.

tweetiepooh 12-10-2020 12:45

Re: Coronavirus
 
But even if you segment up the UK how do you stop people moving between areas? Road blocks? How do you stop people walking cross country? What about people how live on the "border" that work in one area and live in another?

Population is important - NZ has a total population of say 5 million. The UK has 70 million in roughly the same land area. And population behaviour is important - the western mindset is more tuned to individuality than society. We say people should but they don't.

And I do agree the costs will show to be bigger in the long run.

New Zealand is "successful" because it can isolate itself. The Asian countries have some success because the populations do what they are told (or even suggested). We have neither advantage.

jfman 12-10-2020 12:54

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36053378)
But even if you segment up the UK how do you stop people moving between areas? Road blocks?

You would hope people would exercise common sense, but road closures and blocks would be one option if significant numbers of people weren't adhering to the rules. It's not in anyone's interest to export or import Covid across these lines.

Quote:

How do you stop people walking cross country? What about people how live on the "border" that work in one area and live in another?
It should be discouraged. Companies should explore options - working from home or temporarily redeploying staff. If it was essential then fair enough - make testing available to such individuals. Or furlough them until both areas are 'safe' and the temporary border can be lifted.

Quote:

Population is important - NZ has a total population of say 5 million. The UK has 70 million in roughly the same land area. And population behaviour is important - the western mindset is more tuned to individuality than society. We say people should but they don't.

And I do agree the costs will show to be bigger in the long run.

New Zealand is "successful" because it can isolate itself. The Asian countries have some success because the populations do what they are told (or even suggested). We have neither advantage.
Ah the "western mindset". If the western mindset is so strong that people can't adhere to rules to help them get back to normal then they deserve what they get.

Do people really want another year of this? Because that's the alternative.

Mad Max 12-10-2020 13:04

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

He’d get nowhere in economics, certainly. Killing off your customers is bad for business. Unless you run an undertakers.
But, but, they'd be dead as well.....:D

1andrew1 12-10-2020 13:09

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36053378)
But even if you segment up the UK how do you stop people moving between areas? Road blocks? How do you stop people walking cross country? What about people how live on the "border" that work in one area and live in another?

In Ireland, I believe they're stopping people at county boundaries and asking if their journeys are essential so we could do that. Next stage up from that I guess is that they have to prove it's essential.

No one's pretending these things are easy.

denphone 12-10-2020 13:22

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053375)
The population size is a red herring. Divide the UK into the nations and English local authorities. Get each to manage theirs down to zero then open up with the rest of the country when they do. We've got far more resource than New Zealand to throw at such a task, if there was the political will and acceptance that the solution will cost money.

Public behaviour is often touted - people more likely to adhere to rules etc. Well if people open their eyes they should see that's a small price to pay for a semblance of normality. It'd also get the internal economy back on it's feet sooner.

But no, it's too hard/too costly continues to be the mantra. I'm sure when we reflect on the costs in a few years it'd have been a relative bargain.

According to Deputy Chief Medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam in the press conference he has just given he stated the Covid surge in the North is now spreading to the south of England.

Not good news given the tier lockdown level 3 which is going to be announced for many parts of the north later today by the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwW...TheIndependent

jfman 12-10-2020 13:28

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053383)
According to Deputy Chief Medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam in the press conference he has just given he stated the Covid surge in the North is now spreading to the south of England.

Not good news given the tier lockdown level 3 which is going to be announced for many parts of the north later today by the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwW...TheIndependent

A question of when, not if, sadly. No adequate testing/tracing infrastructure in place to prevent it.

papa smurf 12-10-2020 13:29

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053383)
According to Deputy Chief Medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam in the press conference he has just given he stated the Covid surge in the North is now spreading to the south of England.

Not good news given the tier lockdown level 3 which is going to be announced for many parts of the north later today by the government.

Conveniently plucks figures out of the air showing a rise in the south because the north has been vilified for weeks and northerners have had enough of this scifience.

denphone 12-10-2020 13:35

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053384)
A question of when, not if, sadly. No adequate testing/tracing infrastructure in place to prevent it.

l now hear London is now braced for a possible tier 2 lockdown sooner rather then later.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a4568481.html

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053384)
A question of when, not if, sadly. No adequate testing/tracing infrastructure in place to prevent it.

You have summed it up perfectly...

heero_yuy 12-10-2020 15:12

Re: Coronavirus
 
We must be doing something right in Worthing as together with Cornwall and several other places we have a falling infection rate.

It could be having a large number of elderly living here that they're keeping their heads down.

joglynne 12-10-2020 15:25

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Greater Manchester avoids tightest lockdown measures - but Liverpool doesn't
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...7psM6plAJdMgNY

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 15:48

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053379)
Do people really want another year of this? Because that's the alternative.

Continuing lockdowns, release, then another lockdown and so on will certainly guarantee that. Your preferred method is slowing it down!

You need to join your own dots.

1andrew1 12-10-2020 15:54

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053399)
We may struggle to find enough staff to man the Nightingales.

Are you suggesting no restrictions and no Nightingales?

jfman 12-10-2020 16:13

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053398)
Continuing lockdowns, release, then another lockdown and so on will certainly guarantee that. Your preferred method is slowing it down!

You need to join your own dots.

You're making the flawed assumption that letting the virus pass through is an option.

Other countries have successfully plotted a different course and remained committed to it. They've been willing to invest in the public health infrastructure to test, trace and isolate.

What is inevitable is without one we face further restrictions. I have harped on for months about these being inevitable - with many in denial - yet here we are. There is no viable alternative to lockdown that involves letting the virus go.

You yourself don't want to catch the virus, but expect the rest of the population to do it for herd immunity at a cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths. The NHS will be the Coronavirus health service for this period - no cancer treatments, no screenings, nothing. For what? Half a percentage point on GDP?

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053401)
Are you suggesting no restrictions and no Nightingales?

He's still following the flawed view that the health and economic responses are seperate.

1andrew1 12-10-2020 17:23

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053404)
You're making the flawed assumption that letting the virus pass through is an option.

More signs that such a view is little more than a pipedream come from the fact that even with the current restrictions, infection is creeping up into older age groups.
Quote:

Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the rise in COVID-19 cases is being seen "nationwide" and "pretty much all areas of the UK are now seeing growths in the infection rate".

He told a news conference that other regions are following the pattern of the North West of England where the virus has moved through the age bands, having started spiking among young people at first.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...roups-12102505

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 17:37

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053401)
Are you suggesting no restrictions and no Nightingales?

Where did I suggest that?

Certainly, there should be no mandatory restrictions. The public should be advised on how to behave during the pandemic and to stay away from vulnerable friends and relatives, and vulnerable people should be advised to shield. Care homes in particular should be much better protected against people potentially bringing the virus into these establishments.

This strategy, as I said, will achieve herd immunity with fewer deaths because it will tend to spread through the healthy population, the vast majority of whom won’t know they’ve had it. The fact that the vulnerable are protected in this way should ensure fewer deaths, despite the lack of a mandatory lockdown.

Of course we should have the Nightingales. What I am pointing out is that we may not have enough NHS staff to man them.

denphone 12-10-2020 17:43

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053409)
More signs that such a view is little more than a pipedream come from the fact that even with the current restrictions, infection is creeping up into older age groups.


https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...roups-12102505

According to the latest figures Coronavirus hospital numbers in England are up 40% over the last week.

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 17:52

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053404)
You're making the flawed assumption that letting the virus pass through is an option.

Other countries have successfully plotted a different course and remained committed to it. They've been willing to invest in the public health infrastructure to test, trace and isolate.

What is inevitable is without one we face further restrictions. I have harped on for months about these being inevitable - with many in denial - yet here we are. There is no viable alternative to lockdown that involves letting the virus go.

You yourself don't want to catch the virus, but expect the rest of the population to do it for herd immunity at a cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths. The NHS will be the Coronavirus health service for this period - no cancer treatments, no screenings, nothing. For what? Half a percentage point on GDP?

Of course it is an option. We have already had a lockdown which has ruined the summer months for many. As we can see from Liverpool and elsewhere in the north and in London, that did a fat lot of good because now it is back again. How many times do we have to impose lockdowns before you finally concede that you are not going to get a different result at the end of it?

You keep incorrectly pointing out that I want to see more deaths, which shows how little of my argument you have grasped. Are you not aware of what the lockdown has done to people? It has meant that cancer monitoring has not taken place for those susceptible to it, operations have been cancelled, people have been left in agony because they couldn’t get dental treatment, it has been almost impossible to get GP appointments and mental illness has resulted from isolation and people losing their jobs and businesses. The lockdown itself has caused untold deaths and misery, which you appear to find acceptable.

Your reference to the NHS is laughable. We’ve had next to no service from them for months (unless you have COVID symptoms, that is).

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053404)

He's still following the flawed view that the health and economic responses are seperate.

You, a self-styled economist, believe that the economy is irrelevant when considering options, which is hilarious.

I suppose plunging everyone into poverty and collapsing the NHS and other services due to lack of money is a price worth paying in your book.

We need to take a sensible approach, which is not something you have to offer.

papa smurf 12-10-2020 18:40

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053414)
Of course it is an option. We have already had a lockdown which has ruined the summer months for many. As we can see from Liverpool and elsewhere in the north and in London, that did a fat lot of good because now it is back again. How many times do we have to impose lockdowns before you finally concede that you are not going to get a different result at the end of it?

You keep incorrectly pointing out that I want to see more deaths, which shows how little of my argument you have grasped. Are you not aware of what the lockdown has done to people? It has meant that cancer monitoring has not taken place for those susceptible to it, operations have been cancelled, people have been left in agony because they couldn’t get dental treatment, it has been almost impossible to get GP appointments and mental illness has resulted from isolation and people losing their jobs and businesses. The lockdown itself has caused untold deaths and misery, which you appear to find acceptable.

Your reference to the NHS is laughable. We’ve had next to no service from them for months (unless you have COVID symptoms, that is).

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------



You, a self-styled economist, believe that the economy is irrelevant when considering options, which is hilarious.

I suppose plunging everyone into poverty and collapsing the NHS and other services due to lack of money is a price worth paying in your book.

We need to take a sensible approach, which is not something you have to offer.

No one said he was any good at it;)

denphone 12-10-2020 18:59

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053422)
No one said he was any good at it;)

Even top economists get their sums wrong...;)

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 19:40

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053413)
According to the latest figures Coronavirus hospital numbers in England are up 40% over the last week.

That’s mainly in the north, Midlands and London. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before it gets to other southern regions, though. Then we have another lockdown to reduce the numbers of infected people. Then the lockdown will be lifted. Then the infections will start to increase, and the merry-go-round continues.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053424)
Even top economists get their sums wrong...;)

You’re in a very charitable mood today, Den. I will try to learn from you. :)

jfman 12-10-2020 19:41

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053414)
Of course it is an option. We have already had a lockdown which has ruined the summer months for many. As we can see from Liverpool and elsewhere in the north and in London, that did a fat lot of good because now it is back again. How many times do we have to impose lockdowns before you finally concede that you are not going to get a different result at the end of it?

As many as it takes - you heard Boris. Letting it go isn't an option.

Quote:

You keep incorrectly pointing out that I want to see more deaths, which shows how little of my argument you have grasped. Are you not aware of what the lockdown has done to people? It has meant that cancer monitoring has not taken place for those susceptible to it, operations have been cancelled, people have been left in agony because they couldn’t get dental treatment, it has been almost impossible to get GP appointments and mental illness has resulted from isolation and people losing their jobs and businesses. The lockdown itself has caused untold deaths and misery, which you appear to find acceptable.

Your reference to the NHS is laughable. We’ve had next to no service from them for months (unless you have COVID symptoms, that is).

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------



You, a self-styled economist, believe that the economy is irrelevant when considering options, which is hilarious.

I suppose plunging everyone into poverty and collapsing the NHS and other services due to lack of money is a price worth paying in your book.

We need to take a sensible approach, which is not something you have to offer.
We are the fifth richest economy in the world Old Boy. I'm sure we can tax some rich people to fund a solution. :)

The good news OB is I've seen nothing from Government to suggest your pipe dream fantasy of the old economy returning and sacrificing lives to expedite it is any closer to fruition.

Back to the drawing board. Just a flu, go away in the summer, get out there and stop being scared. I look forward to your next piece of insight on this subject.

Hugh 12-10-2020 19:58

Re: Coronavirus
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54505193 @18:21

Quote:

The head of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has spoken out against supporters of a 'herd immunity' approach to the pandemic.

Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community becomes immune to a disease - thereby breaking transmission and protecting those who are not immune.

It can be reached through vaccines, or when a sufficient number of people have recovered from a disease and developed resistance to future infection - or both.

Since no peer-approved coronavirus vaccine exists, some have argued for herd immunity by allowing the virus to spread.

But at a news conference, WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus called this "scientifically and ethnically problematic".

He added that the long-term impacts of coronavirus are still unknown, and it is not clear how strong or lasting people's immune response can be.

"Letting Covid-19 circulate unchecked therefore means allowing unnecessary infections, suffering and death," said Dr Ghebreyesus.
I think he meant "ethically" rather than "ethnically"...

Update - he did (it must be a typo on the BBC website).

https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus...oblematic.html

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 20:14

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053430)
As many as it takes - you heard Boris. Letting it go isn't an option.



We are the fifth richest economy in the world Old Boy. I'm sure we can tax some rich people to fund a solution. :)

The good news OB is I've seen nothing from Government to suggest your pipe dream fantasy of the old economy returning and sacrificing lives to expedite it is any closer to fruition.

Back to the drawing board. Just a flu, go away in the summer, get out there and stop being scared. I look forward to your next piece of insight on this subject.

And what about the lives and well being of people who are subject to lockdown after lockdown? What about their jobs and businesses? What about the lives that will be lost when the NHS collapses because everyone thought jfman’s rhetoric about the economy not being of concern sounded a great idea and didn’t believe the money would ever run out to sustain it?

The stupidity of this approach is so obvious, it is clear you are taking the piss, so I will leave you to amuse yourself with these absurd ideas.

I suppose you can always blame it on the ‘experts’ when you are eventually proved wrong, as you will be. Unless you are an expert yourself, jfman, in which case you have nowhere to run! :p:

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053431)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54505193 @18:21



I think he meant "ethically" rather than "ethnically"...

Update - he did (it must be a typo on the BBC website).

https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus...oblematic.html

No wonder President Trump has pulled out of the WHO. Trust them to bring equalities into it!

jfman 12-10-2020 20:21

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053432)
And what about the lives and well being of people who are subject to lockdown after lockdown? What about their jobs and businesses? What about the lives that will be lost when the NHS collapses because everyone thought jfman’s rhetoric about the economy not being of concern sounded a great idea and didn’t believe the money would ever run out to sustain it?

The stupidity of this approach is so obvious, it is clear you are taking the piss, so I will leave you to amuse yourself with these absurd ideas.

I suppose you can always blame it on the ‘experts’ when you are eventually proved wrong, as you will be. Unless you are an expert yourself, jfman, in which case you have nowhere to run! :p:

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------



No wonder President Trump has pulled out of the WHO. Trust them to bring equalities into it!

What about the lives of people subject to lockdown after lockdown? Are they better off with the virus running rampant, for a questionable level of immunity, to have no health service of note AND an economy tanking?

I doubt it.

Jobs and businesses need protected - that's where borrowing and taxation come in to plug the gap and an effective test, trace, isolate system are essential.

The Swedish economy is in decline, so it's absolutely false to pretend that not controlling the virus is an economic solution. Isolating the vulnerable, and those who choose to be selective, reduces demand in the economy. Businesses are going to fail either way, you either support them financially or you don't.

I fail to see how I will be proven wrong not a single country of any note is taking your approach seriously.

Hugh 12-10-2020 20:25

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053432)
And what about the lives and well being of people who are subject to lockdown after lockdown? What about their jobs and businesses? What about the lives that will be lost when the NHS collapses because everyone thought jfman’s rhetoric about the economy not being of concern sounded a great idea and didn’t believe the money would ever run out to sustain it?

The stupidity of this approach is so obvious, it is clear you are taking the piss, so I will leave you to amuse yourself with these absurd ideas.

I suppose you can always blame it on the ‘experts’ when you are eventually proved wrong, as you will be. Unless you are an expert yourself, jfman, in which case you have nowhere to run! :p:

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------



No wonder President Trump has pulled out of the WHO. Trust them to bring equalities into it!

They didn’t - as I said, it was a typo by the BBC.

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 20:30

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053435)
They didn’t - as I said, it was a typo by the BBC.

Sorry, Hugh, my mistake!

jfman 12-10-2020 21:40

Re: Coronavirus
 
Fantastic news for “I’ve had a good life” Vince Cable he can now volunteer to get infected by Coronavirus as part of clinical trials.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/12/h...ntl/index.html

This is a win-win for ‘herd immunity’ types they get to both progress herd immunity AND a vaccine trial. I look forward to fantastic demand to participate in the trial.

Mad Max 12-10-2020 21:55

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053413)
According to the latest figures Coronavirus hospital numbers in England are up 40% over the last week.

I see they are using % figures to scare people now.

nomadking 12-10-2020 22:06

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053446)
I see they are using % figures to scare people now.

Link

Quote:

More concerning though is the number of hospital admissions in England which rose by 40% in a week to 3,665 patients.
Over 1,000 additional hospital admissions sounds so much better.:rolleyes:

jfman 12-10-2020 22:08

Re: Coronavirus
 
How many weeks of additional thousands of Covid patients do you think the NHS is built to withstand?

Mad Max 12-10-2020 22:20

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053448)
How many weeks of additional thousands of Covid patients do you think the NHS is built to withstand?

It's looking a lot less than in March/April imo.

papa smurf 12-10-2020 22:30

Re: Coronavirus
 
How many NHS hospitals are there in the UK?
1,257 hospitals
In addition to this, not all private hospitals are managed by NHS Trusts. The actual number, correct as at September 2019, is that there are 1,257 hospitals in the UK. This number includes the NHS Trust-managed hospitals and the additional private hospitals that are currently in use.

3665 patients into 1257 hospitals = how many to each hospital as an average.

Hugh 12-10-2020 22:32

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053452)
How many NHS hospitals are there in the UK?
1,257 hospitals
In addition to this, not all private hospitals are managed by NHS Trusts. The actual number, correct as at September 2019, is that there are 1,257 hospitals in the UK. This number includes the NHS Trust-managed hospitals and the additional private hospitals that are currently in use.

3665 patients into 1257 hospitals = how many to each hospital as an average.

How many ITU beds?

papa smurf 12-10-2020 22:40

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053455)
How many ITU beds?

How many patients need one?

mrmistoffelees 12-10-2020 23:13

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053456)
How many patients need one?

The question should be how many are going to need one in 10-14 days time.

Sephiroth 12-10-2020 23:42

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053445)
Fantastic news for “I’ve had a good life” Vince Cable he can now volunteer to get infected by Coronavirus as part of clinical trials.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/12/h...ntl/index.html

This is a win-win for ‘herd immunity’ types they get to both progress herd immunity AND a vaccine trial. I look forward to fantastic demand to participate in the trial.

It's a win-win for all those who repudiate Vince Cable's crackpot ideas.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.