Coronavirus (OLD)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Spot on, Seph. What I am opposed to is futile actions that destroy the economy.

I am used to some on here that like to twist what I say into something completely different so they can have an argument. However, I hope that the majority on here get my drift.

Except the actions are not futile, and the Government can support the economy just as every other Government in the world (and the EU) will have to do the same.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

<SNIP>

You have not understood this, have you?

Of course we should take practical measures to slow down this virus. But you will not stop it.

You may save people from dying now, but they will still die tomorrow. It is a better policy to protect the vulnerable and at the same time create herd immunity in the healthy population than take futile measures that wreck the economy and achieve only a slowing down of the progress of the virus.

By protecting the vulnerable in this way, there will be much less risk of those people much more susceptible to the worst effects of this virus actually catching it.

SOME will still die with the lockdown in place, however the death rate without a lockdown in place would be on who knows what exponential. (Whatever it is, it won't be as 'low' as it is now)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

This continues to be incorrect. You are assuming that everyone will be infected, that that they will be offered the exact same type of medical intervention at all times and that no improvements in either treatment or in the form of a vaccine will arise. Not all of those statements are true.

Indeed, you are contradicting yourself in your desperation of selling everyone the falsehood that the economy needs to reopen at all costs.

On one hand you are telling us that the likelihood is that herd immunity is the solution - in which case slowing the spread ensures that medical services are not overrun as we saw in Italy. On the other you are telling us that the virus could die off or mutate itself out of existence the summer - in which case what's the rush? Let's sit it out til the end of August and lives will be saved.

I have made no such assumptions, jfman. You are again twisting this to suit your own argumentative agenda. If you are going to comment on my posts, at least get the quotes right.

I accept that we might get a vaccine sooner rather than later, but that's just a hope, not a fact, and mass distribution of that vaccine is unlikely to be available at all this year. You are clutching at straws and giving false hope by describing the absolutely best case scenario, which is most unlike you!

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Mankind will never beat nature that is for sure.

Its because of mankind and its the rampant destruction of the natural world that we are in this mess.

There is a single species responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic and that is us humans.

If humans don't learn from this pandemic then future pandemics will inevitably be worse then this one.

A pretty good observation, Den.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

<SNIP>

It would be over a lot quicker, that's all.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------



Here we go again, attack capitalism!

What you advocate in relation to the lockdown measures would have been very popular with King Canute. He was a great advocate of the power of hope and delusion over nature.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------



I see no bears, Den. That is just alarmist.

It would be over a damn site quicker, absolutely, it would also lead to the complete and utter collapse of the NHS, & utter destruction of the economy.

BTW Attack capitalism? If that's how you view it fair enough. But in a capitalist market by its very definition, things must be allowed to fail.

You make the money? you should be saving for the rainy days

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Mankind will never beat nature that is for sure.

Its because of mankind and its the rampant destruction of the natural world that we are in this mess.

There is a single species responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic and that is us humans.

If humans don't learn from this pandemic then future pandemics will inevitably be worse then this one.

One could argue that this is simply a virus at war with another virus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy I really think you should go for a lie down.

It's not me bursting a blood vessel here, jfman. I am going to let you take a spell to calm yourself.

I have made my views perfectly clear for most people but you are either not understanding them or you are deliberately trying to send me up.

I also understand what you are saying. However, I don't think any amount of arguing will resolve the differences between us on this.

I guess we will soon see what doesn't work and what does.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

It would be over a damn site quicker, absolutely, it would also lead to the complete and utter collapse of the NHS, & utter destruction of the economy.

This is why the lockdown was introduced, to flatten out the statistics. So we agree on that.

Where we diverge is that you say (if I interpret you correctly) that the lockdown should continue to avoid deaths.

However, it won't. The virus will still claim its victims, but not so quickly.

Would it not be better to protect the vulnerable and let herd immunity do its magic with the healthier population, ensuring that the vulnerable are among the 20% who escape its impact? That's what I am advocating.

That way, we minimise the impact and get the economy going again.

However, whether even that would succeed is debateable. The elderly in care homes are dying in great numbers, despite being given as much isolation as is practicable. However maybe, just maybe, we can protect the vulnerable in their own homes.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I say again, the virus will determine that. We are slowing it down, not stopping infections.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------



Do you seriously believe that, jfman, or are you offering everyone false hope?

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:28 ----------



It would be over a lot quicker, that's all.

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------



Here we go again, attack capitalism!

What you advocate in relation to the lockdown measures would have been very popular with King Canute. He was a great advocate of the power of hope and delusion over nature.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------



I see no bears, Den. That is just alarmist.

No, he wasn't - King Canute did what he did to show he couldn't hold back the tide, not to try and hold back the tide.

Canute, the greatest and most powerful monarch of his time, sovereign of Denmark and Norway, as well as of England, could not fail of meeting with adulation from his courtiers; a tribute which is literally paid even to the meanest and weakest princes. Some of his flatterers breaking out, one day, in admiration of his grandeur, exclaimed that every thing was possible for him: Upon which the monarch, it is said, ordered his chair to be set on the sea-shore, while the tide was rising, and as the waters approached, he commanded them to retire, and to obey the voice who was lord of the ocean. He feigned to sit some time in expectation of their submission; but when the sea still advanced towards him, and began to wash him with its billows, he turned to his courtiers, and remarked to them, that every creature in the universe was feeble and impotent, and that power resided with one Being alone, in whose hands were all the elements of nature; who could say to ocean, ‘Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther’; and who could level with his nod the most towering piles of human pride and ambition.

https://www.medievalists.net/2015/05...and-the-waves/

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's not me bursting a blood vessel here, jfman. I am going to let you take a spell to calm yourself.

I have made my views perfectly clear for most people but you are either not understanding them or you are deliberately trying to send me up.

I also understand what you are saying. However, I don't think any amount of arguing will resolve the differences between us on this.

I guess we will soon see what doesn't work and what does.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------

This is why the lockdown was introduced, to flatten out the statistics. So we agree on that.

Where we diverge is that you say (if I interpret you correctly) that the lockdown should continue to avoid deaths.

However, it won't. The virus will still claim its victims, but not so quickly.

Would it not be better to protect the vulnerable and let herd immunity do its magic with the healthier population, ensuring that the vulnerable are among the 20% who escape its impact? That's what I am advocating.

That way, we minimise the impact and get the economy going again.

However, whether even that would succeed is debateable. The elderly in care homes are dying in great numbers, despite being given as much isolation as is practicable. However maybe, just maybe, we can protect the vulnerable in their own homes.

No, that idea is of no more value now than when it was dismissed out of hand by going into lockdown.

There's nothing magic about 250,000 deaths. I have to say I find some of your use of language here utterly appalling.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Would it not be better to protect the vulnerable and let herd immunity do its magic with the healthier population, ensuring that the vulnerable are among the 20% who escape its impact? That's what I am advocating.

But we don't know yet whether we can acquire immunity to CV-19 do we? From just two days ago:

It [WHO] said there was "no evidence" that people who had developed antibodies after recovering from the virus were protected against a second infection.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52425825

Originally Posted by jfman

I have to say I find some of your use of language here utterly appalling.

Thats enough [from you] and everyone else.
If you want to disagree with other members views, thats fine.

We will not tolerate continued personal digs directed at each other.

[Russ]

It may be subject to weekend delays but today's figure of around 350 is very encouraging.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's not me bursting a blood vessel here, jfman. I am going to let you take a spell to calm yourself.

I have made my views perfectly clear for most people but you are either not understanding them or you are deliberately trying to send me up.

I also understand what you are saying. However, I don't think any amount of arguing will resolve the differences between us on this.

I guess we will soon see what doesn't work and what does.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------

This is why the lockdown was introduced, to flatten out the statistics. So we agree on that.

Where we diverge is that you say (if I interpret you correctly) that the lockdown should continue to avoid deaths.

However, it won't. The virus will still claim its victims, but not so quickly.

Would it not be better to protect the vulnerable and let herd immunity do its magic with the healthier population, ensuring that the vulnerable are among the 20% who escape its impact? That's what I am advocating.

That way, we minimise the impact and get the economy going again.

However, whether even that would succeed is debateable. The elderly in care homes are dying in great numbers, despite being given as much isolation as is practicable. However maybe, just maybe, we can protect the vulnerable in their own homes.

So, a couple of points.

1) Lockdown does not mean the same amount of deaths over a longer period of time. It means less deaths over a longer period of time as we have the resources and the equipment to be able to manage the amount of cases that required dedicated intensive care.

IF it was the same amount of deaths that would occur regardless of if you had a lockdown or not, you might, just have a point.

2) You keep talking about herd immunity, again, there's no evidence to support that herd immunity is a way to get out of this. We simply do not know. As a side case, there's currently thirty three identified strains of SARS-COV-2 affecting the human race.

Therefore even if herd immunity were to work you're looking at multiple instances of that being required.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

But we don't know yet whether we can acquire immunity to CV-19 do we? From just two days ago:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52425825

We'll not know that until they are exposed to a second infection.

[jonbxx]

Things do seem to be going in the right direction at least. Taking into account the 'weekend effect', here are the numbers for the last few Mondays;

27th April - 413
20th April - 596
13th April - 737
6th April - 621
30th March - 209

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

But we don't know yet whether we can acquire immunity to CV-19 do we?

You had better hope so, since thats how vaccines work.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Things do seem to be going in the right direction at least. Taking into account the 'weekend effect', here are the numbers for the last few Mondays;

27th April - 413
20th April - 596
13th April - 737
6th April - 621
30th March - 209

Where did you get 413 from?