Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Are you now making it deliberately difficult to quote your posts?

Herd immunity gaining currency? Where?

Hadn’t realised we’d slipped to the sixth richest economy in the world. That’s probably the collapse of the pound post Brexit. We better get working on an economic stimulus like the bold Donald. The old economy isn’t coming back.

Nobody wants to die for it.

https://twitter.com/edconwaysky/stat...704594952?s=21

It’s quite interesting what the Government can afford despite spending so much time saying it can’t afford things.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

You're right that it has to be across the world or else
as soon as holidays start countries start importing and exporting it between themselves. In retrospect that looks like madness now to have minimal impact on saving airlines anyway

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

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

An expensive and in fact ruinous waste of time.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------


Herd immunity can occur either naturally or with a vaccine. The latter is not guaranteed and constant lockdowns delay but don’t eliminate infections.

Reinfection has occurred only rarely and therefore can be ignored without further evidence. Spanish flu disappeared on its own after two years.

There is only one sensible solution, in my view. All the alternatives I have heard seem to be fatally flawed and these are for the pussies.

The PM knows what the right answer is, he just needs the courage to run with it.

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------


If this goes on much longer we won’t be able to afford these remedies. This is cloud cuckoo land if ever I saw it.

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?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

There is no saving it by constant lockdowns either.
The evidence is already there, loads of job losses and business closures already, with many more predicted to come when the furlough scheme ends in 2.5 weeks.

The NHS should probably be renamed the NCS, (National Covid Service) since thats about all they seem to deal with now, getting treatment for anything else is more & more difficult. I'm supposed to have an eye appointment at my local hospital, cancelled in March, still no new date available. I had a suspected chest infection the other week. I could not even visit the doctor, they just rang me and prescribed antibiotics (in hope I guess).

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

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?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's such an expensive and ruinous waste of time not a single country on earth is proactively pursuing the policy. Neither is the leader of the Opposition.

What is ruinous is arranging tens of thousands of unnecessary funerals, condemning those who need the NHS over the next 12 months to go without treatment as it fills up with Covid beds and achieving NO IMMUNITY AT ALL.

Stick to your seasonal epidemiology Old Boy. At least it was harmless banter.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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?

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.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Unless you put the vulnerable in almost totally sterile conditions (which include elderly, immune disorders, 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?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

[jfman]

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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?

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.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Ah, people who want to protect the vulnerable and are concerned about the unknown dangers of long COVID are "pussies’?

Nice to see rational, reasoned arguments being put forward...

That is experts for you.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.now.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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

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.

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.