Coronavirus (OLD)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

While it suits some to politicise it the simple explanation is that the public won’t stand for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of deaths

There is absolutely zero, and I mean zero, evidence to back that up.

If, and it’s a big if, there is a second wave - I personally don’t see it - it is highly unlikely it would surpass the wave we had in April given the heightened status of the country, hospital admissions and deaths remain low. There is no way “ hundreds of thousands” of deaths would ensue. That is sensationalism of the umpth-degree.

As has been said no many times in recent weeks/days, people can now see The direction of travel. Shield the vulnerable, but the general healthy population should just get on with it. Infections will rise, but if -as seems to be the case now - hospital admissions and deaths remain low.

You can call it “herd immunity” if you want, I don’t, but I would just call it living with it.

Thousands more, anymore that may succumb to any other illness, are not going to die in this country.

[jfman]

Zero evidence = the scientific modelling the Government - a Conservative Government - used to go into lockdown and making the largest amount of public expenditure supporting the economy that we’ve seen since the war.

The bad news Pierre is this situation will not unfold on the basis of what you consider “likely”. If you were right in your speculation the numbers wouldn’t be going up at all.

At least you accept “herd immunity” is accepting defeat, working from home the norm, social distancing encouraged like in Sweden and the economy tanking anyway.

There’s no evidence that hospital admissions will remain low, it’s pure conjecture, and in the absence of a functioning testing mechanism there’s no way to track or control the spread of the virus. Much like February the outcome is inevitable without any mitigation at all.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure big government has anything to do with it. I’d hardly consider the Tories “big government” fans, or Macron.

While it suits some to politicise it the simple explanation is that the public won’t stand for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of deaths because the Government is negligent. So the government needs either a competent plan or a lockdown as an emergency brake. The latter is absolutely inevitable unless the former comes into being, fast.

Get a grip, as you always ask on here, provide evidence to back that up!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Get a grip, as you always ask on here, provide evidence to back that up!

I’ve pointed out before the scientific evidence we followed in March pointed to that. There’s no real evidence to discredit that modelling that anyone has made available.

You can ignore the evidence as often as you please as it’s particularly uncomfortable for you, however in the absence of improved treatments or mitigation (of which lockdown is the ultimate mitigation) that’s where we end up.

I’m at a loss to who wins by wilfully ignoring the science. We aren’t going back to normal so we are stuck in limbo, where the village idiots think it’s a deep state conspiracy, and rational people want to avoid death for them and their loved ones. Is there someone out there hoovering up or shorting stocks? I’d genuinely like to know...

I’ve got a perfect grip of the issue at hand. It’s others floundering from one stance to another in denial, to what end is a mystery.

[1andrew1]

I had to check that this wasn't dated April 1st!

A coronavirus testing centre in Kent has been closed to make way for a lorry park for post-Brexit customs checks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-54158100

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’ve pointed out before the scientific evidence we followed in March pointed to that. There’s no real evidence to discredit that modelling that anyone has made available.

You can ignore the evidence as often as you please as it’s particularly uncomfortable for you, however in the absence of improved treatments or mitigation (of which lockdown is the ultimate mitigation) that’s where we end up.

I’m at a loss to who wins by wilfully ignoring the science. We aren’t going back to normal so we are stuck in limbo, where the village idiots think it’s a deep state conspiracy, and rational people want to avoid death for them and their loved ones. Is there someone out there hoovering up or shorting stocks? I’d genuinely like to know...

I’ve got a perfect grip of the issue at hand. It’s others floundering from one stance to another in denial, to what end is a mystery.

The mitigations that have been taken by most people are helping,wearing masks, social distancing,you cannot say that those are not helping, we didn't have those at the start of the pandemic, there has also been dexamethasone which has helped many people who suffered badly, so you cannot say that there has not been any improvement in treating this virus, also why did we not have hundreds of thousands of deaths at the start of the pandemic, and what about the thousands and thousands of people who have been out and about, on the beaches, at the pubs etc etc, this all happened months ago but the deaths from all of these people who were out and enjoying themselves hasn't materialised, has it?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

The mitigations that have been taken by most people are helping, we didn't have those at the start of the pandemic, there has also been dexamethasone which has helped many people who suffered badly, so you cannot say that there has not been any improvement in treating this virus, also why did we not have hundreds of thousands of deaths at the start of the pandemic, and what about the thousands and thousands of people who have been out and about, on the beaches, at the pubs etc etc, this all happened months ago but the deaths from all of these people who were out and enjoying themselves hasn't materialised, has it?

You’re again using anecdotal evidence to justify your position. Those on the beaches it’s now almost universally accepted that outdoor risks are extremely low. The vast majority of pubs have put mitigation in place in respect of distancing.

So while you’ve witnessed these activities demonised in the newspapers they don’t amount to being the greatest opportunities for the virus to spread. It’s no coincidence that testing has broken when the schools have gone back - many children/young adults in close proximity with minimal distancing. Colleges and universities present the same risk.

Mass commuting crammed like cattle onto public transport and 40 hours a week in air conditioned offices all add the greatest opportunities for the virus to spread other than in your own home. Millions of close human contacts every day exchanging germs. A day out at the beach or a Saturday night on the tiles (in particular aggregated over the whole population as many will opt out) bears no comparison to commuting 10 times a week.

It does, at face value, appear treatments are helping and yes mitigations in place are helping just now, and have kept figures low over the summer. Removing these mitigations, however, ends one way.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

You’re again using anecdotal evidence to justify your position. Those on the beaches it’s now almost universally accepted that outdoor risks are extremely low. The vast majority of pubs have put mitigation in place in respect of distancing.

So while you’ve witnessed these activities demonised in the newspapers they don’t amount to being the greatest opportunities for the virus to spread. It’s no coincidence that testing has broken when the schools have gone back - many children/young adults in close proximity with minimal distancing. Colleges and universities present the same risk.

Mass commuting crammed like cattle onto public transport and 40 hours a week in air conditioned offices all add the greatest opportunities for the virus to spread other than in your own home. Millions of close human contacts every day exchanging germs. A day out at the beach or a Saturday night on the tiles (in particular aggregated over the whole population as many will opt out) bears no comparison to commuting 10 times a week.

It does, at face value, appear treatments are helping and yes mitigations in place are helping just now, and have kept figures low over the summer. Removing these mitigations, however, ends one way.

No I'm not, so you're saying that all those people crammed on beaches doesn't have an effect on the spread of the virus? Outdoors does lessen the effect of the spread, I will agree on that, but when you have so many people close together like that i'd say you are still at significant risk, It's you who is trying to justify your outrageous claim that hundreds of thousands of people will die, so tell me this, why haven't hundreds and thousands of people died in the last six months?
Let's just see if all those being infected at the moment start filling up the hospitals and dying, I think not in my opinion.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

No I'm not, so you're saying that all those people crammed on beaches doesn't have an effect on the spread of the virus? Outdoors does lessen the effect of the spread, I will agree on that, but when you have so many people close together like that i'd say you are still at significant risk, It's you who is trying to justify your outrageous claim that hundreds of thousands of people will die, so tell me this, why haven't hundreds and thousands of people died in the last six months?
Let's just see if all those being infected at the moment start filling up the hospitals and dying, I think not in my opinion.

Mitigation. Which in your post above you have agreed has had significant effects.

You’re only at significant risk on a beach if others on said beach are carrying the virus AND you are in close contact with them for a period of time. When the numbers were driven low in the summer it was statistically unlikely that you’d encounter a person at the beach with the virus, and statistically unlikely you’d catch it from them in an outdoor setting.

It’s already acknowledged that those carrying the infections at the moment are in the lower risk age group. They cannot be reliably isolated in the medium to long term from their wider families or from their older colleagues, especially in the absence of an effective test, trace, isolate regime. It’s inevitable then the virus will be in care homes and hospitals.

In uncontrolled, unmitigated circumstances exponential growth is inevitable, the NHS overwhelmed and that means deaths. I don’t think you disagree with that statement. It’s wishful thinking that the events of Italy in February won’t happen here if we did/do nothing. The only variable is the mitigation.

Just getting back to testing for a sec ..

A mobile test centre turned up in our local town centre today.
All our local schools have also been provided with at least 10 tests for staff.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Paul

Just getting back to testing for a sec ..

A mobile test centre turned up in our local town centre today.
All our local schools have also been provided with at least 10 tests for staff.

Which will probably be taken up by people that don't need them and fancy a test.... Any kid with the mildest of return to school sniffle. Any returning holiday maker, with no symptoms, but reckons they're owed a test just to be sure, even though they were advised not to travel.

It always falls down the Great Thick British public.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Which will probably be taken up by people that don't need them and fancy a test.... Any kid with the mildest of return to school sniffle. Any returning holiday maker, with no symptoms, but reckons they're owed a test just to be sure, even though they were advised not to travel.

It always falls down the Great Thick British public.

Most people who have had a test I feel would not regard it as a pleasurable experience and certainly not something to "fancy"

I've had 2 in the last 11 days and was provided with a sick bowl........

Maybe if people knew they might think twice.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’ve pointed out before the scientific evidence we followed in March pointed to that. There’s no real evidence to discredit that modelling that anyone has made available.

You can ignore the evidence as often as you please as it’s particularly uncomfortable for you, however in the absence of improved treatments or mitigation (of which lockdown is the ultimate mitigation) that’s where we end up.

I’m at a loss to who wins by wilfully ignoring the science. We aren’t going back to normal so we are stuck in limbo, where the village idiots think it’s a deep state conspiracy, and rational people want to avoid death for them and their loved ones. Is there someone out there hoovering up or shorting stocks? I’d genuinely like to know...

I’ve got a perfect grip of the issue at hand. It’s others floundering from one stance to another in denial, to what end is a mystery.

Here you go.

Indeed, Ferguson’s Imperial College model has been proven wildly inaccurate. To cite just one example, it saw Sweden paying a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden now has 2,854 deaths and peaked two weeks ago. As Fraser Nelson, editor of Britain’s Spectator, notes: “Imperial College’s model is wrong by an order of magnitude.”

Indeed, Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him “The Master of Disaster.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-in-disgrace/

[jfman]

Opinion pieces by people who disagree does not constitute the model being inaccurate in and of itself.

Sweden did not have a formal lockdown in legislation but there were plenty of behavioural changes that would impact on the model - working from home remains the norm in Sweden, social distancing is encouraged, school years were educated from home.

Would that be a satisfactory outcome for the property developers for 40% of the UK workforce to remain working from home? I suspect not.

[Carth]

To be fair, "opinion pieces by people who disagree" seems to be a large number of links used as 'proof' posted by many here . . . on both sides of an argument