I'm not excusing the act, which is deplorable and deserving of punishment, but they might have difficulty proving that was the specific cause of her infection.
The intent to do harm was still there, so an assault charge would at least stick. On the other hand, what if they find the spitter and they end up testing negative for the virus?
Yeah of course, I'm with that all the way. but I can't see a murder charge going anywhere, because I don't think there's really any way you could definitively prove that that was when she was infected. It would be thrown out. You'd also have to prove that the assailant was infected at that time.
"The kids are coming back today (a small part of them instead).
Very strange, even disturbing atmosphere ..."
Spoiler:
that 3rd photo few weeks extra holiday and then there you are seeing all the adults in masks and making you play 2 metres away from your friends.
Yeah that's bs. Let them run around with their friends. Our nursery has been running as normal for those who couldn't leave work to care for their kids. Hope they don't start making this stuff mandatory.
Tyran wrote: That's why involuntary manslaughter is a thing. Not as hard hitting as murder charges, but far easier to prove.
Also make that conduct a felony because felony murder is the most absurdly easy thing to prove.
You'd still need to prove, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that that specific action had led to her infection, which would be impossible.
I think it would depend on the jury. A committed jury is capable of ignoring the most obvious evidence, or believing the most flimsy evidence, if they feel there is an important point to be made. The jury's decision can't be overturned, however ludicrous it may seem.
All that being said, it wouldn't be murder and it would only get before the jury if the crown prosecution service thought they could make the charge stick.
Oof. Those chalk Xs and boxes. Someone doesn't get children, at all.
The local church daycare is having conversations, and someone on the committee wants the kids in masks, and doesn't seem to grasp that 3-5 year olds aren't going to stay in masks for ~8 hours. Even a small percentage of that isn't going to happen.
You might as well try to teach the wind to 'sit' and 'stay.'
Our county is allowing summer camps for kids of essential workers or people who own a buisness.
I really dont get how they think this is safe at all.
Its INSANE that people think stuff like that is ok.
So desperate to get things back to normal or get away from their kids, they are willing to do such incredibly unsafe stuff
hotsauceman1 wrote: Our county is allowing summer camps for kids of essential workers or people who own a buisness.
I really dont get how they think this is safe at all.
Its INSANE that people think stuff like that is ok.
So desperate to get things back to normal or get away from their kids, they are willing to do such incredibly unsafe stuff
Summercamp? What will they do if/when they get an outbreak at camp? Close the camp and keep everyone isolated there and cross their fingers enough staff remain viable to keep it running without having to be hospitalised - and if so then who will take over. Plus even if they don't ship students home all those parents are going to go into protective mode and demand to take their kids home; either of which would then infect all those households.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Our county is allowing summer camps for kids of essential workers or people who own a buisness.
I really dont get how they think this is safe at all.
Its INSANE that people think stuff like that is ok.
So desperate to get things back to normal or get away from their kids, they are willing to do such incredibly unsafe stuff
So when do they go back to doing that? in a month? when its safe? whens that? when theres a vaccine? if theres a vaccine?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Our county is allowing summer camps for kids of essential workers or people who own a buisness.
I really dont get how they think this is safe at all.
Its INSANE that people think stuff like that is ok.
So desperate to get things back to normal or get away from their kids, they are willing to do such incredibly unsafe stuff
Summercamp? What will they do if/when they get an outbreak at camp? Close the camp and keep everyone isolated there and cross their fingers enough staff remain viable to keep it running without having to be hospitalised - and if so then who will take over. Plus even if they don't ship students home all those parents are going to go into protective mode and demand to take their kids home; either of which would then infect all those households.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Our county is allowing summer camps for kids of essential workers or people who own a buisness.
I really dont get how they think this is safe at all.
Its INSANE that people think stuff like that is ok.
So desperate to get things back to normal or get away from their kids, they are willing to do such incredibly unsafe stuff
So when do they go back to doing that? in a month? when its safe? whens that? when theres a vaccine? if theres a vaccine?
When there's a vaccine - when medical treatments are more advanced than they are now and perhaps don't rely on ventilators - when track and trace and testing is sufficient to have isolated the main pockets of infection to render most areas safe - perhaps if there's a reliable and fast testing system so that students and staff can be tested in advance and during the event to ensure reduced chance of infection etc....
There's a lot of times when things can re-start; however right now isn't really the time. USA and UK are still right in the thick of it; meanwhile the whole world is sitll eating up supplies of medical tests and the like. There's still a long long way to go before you can start envisioning safe camp setup.
There are also surely more local ways for parents in key jobs to have their children cared for during the summer which would at least contain any potential outbreak to a specific region.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Our county is allowing summer camps for kids of essential workers or people who own a buisness.
I really dont get how they think this is safe at all.
Its INSANE that people think stuff like that is ok.
So desperate to get things back to normal or get away from their kids, they are willing to do such incredibly unsafe stuff
So when do they go back to doing that? in a month? when its safe? whens that? when theres a vaccine? if theres a vaccine?
Certainly when things are not at the height of the pandemic.
When its safeis when the number of daily cases is going down, not up like it is.
Im pretty sure summer camps are not the height of being needed.
ITs also not just about the kids, but the adults in the program, more adults meeting and sharing space more than necessary for survival is beyond reckless.
Things are going to be cancelled this summer, people have to get used to it and deal with it. Is it fair? No! Is it essential to do it? Yes
It’s all main roads to mine, and they’re pretty dead at this time of night even without a lockdown. Dude essentially doubled the distance, with two, possibly three distinct stops on the journey.
Humph.
Still, I’m in a good place where this is my only moan!
hotsauceman1 wrote: Our county is allowing summer camps for kids of essential workers or people who own a buisness.
I really dont get how they think this is safe at all.
Its INSANE that people think stuff like that is ok.
So desperate to get things back to normal or get away from their kids, they are willing to do such incredibly unsafe stuff
It's important that we keep in mind that some people are really, really, really not handling lockdown well. Beyond the economics, etc. And it's affecting their judgement. They may seem okay, but deep inside:
Thing is, governments can't let those people drive the discussion. Reopenings need to happen according to data and a plan, not because individuals are tired of it and don't give a gak about anyone else.
It’s all main roads to mine, and they’re pretty dead at this time of night even without a lockdown. Dude essentially doubled the distance, with two, possibly three distinct stops on the journey.
Humph.
Still, I’m in a good place where this is my only moan!
Ok then the other possibility,
He was meeting his drug dealer.
They could be prosecuted in the same way as those who've been convicted of doing the same to the police, so probably 6 months inside (those that attacked the police tended to get about a year, but sentences for those attacking emergency workers are doubled now)
(if you say you've got the virus the court will treat you the same as if you had, just as if you threaten somebody with an imitation firearm the sentence will be the same as if it was real)
but murder or manslaughter would likely depend on showing the aggressor has had the virus
hotsauceman1 wrote: The problem is, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
and these guys are real squeky
They're squeaky and forming some unholy alliances. Some of those protests are apparently mixing white supremacists, anti-vaxxers, militia types, etc. The Freedumb Party, I guess.
At some point though -- and getting back on topic -- people in power need to start understanding that there aren't necessarily thousands of people being represented by each of those 30 protesters or a handful loud voices on Twitter. They only have that kind of power if you *give it to them*. Of course, there's a certain person who kinda/sorta has a sympathetic ear, but generally speaking if you laugh them off and just keep on truckin'...nothing's really going to happen.
The media is also complicit. Do you know how many little protests -- or hell, even larger ones -- happen in front of government buildings that aren't covered by the media and melodramatically declared to be "a sign of our nation tearing itself apart"? So are these fringe types *really* that loud? Or are they being handed a megaphone so that they seem loud? There's lots of fail going around in our society at the moment IMO.
In what is presumably an effort to confirm that the UK is still an overtly classist society and that coronavirus is a secondary threat to the hardships of dusting or raising your own children, ministers have been doing the rounds telling everyone that your parents still can't visit your home but your cleaners and nannies should be activity encouraged to return to work.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The problem is, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
and these guys are real squeky
They're squeaky and forming some unholy alliances. Some of those protests are apparently mixing white supremacists, anti-vaxxers, militia types, etc. The Freedumb Party, I guess.
At some point though -- and getting back on topic -- people in power need to start understanding that there aren't necessarily thousands of people being represented by each of those 30 protesters or a handful loud voices on Twitter. They only have that kind of power if you *give it to them*. Of course, there's a certain person who kinda/sorta has a sympathetic ear, but generally speaking if you laugh them off and just keep on truckin'...nothing's really going to happen.
The media is also complicit. Do you know how many little protests -- or hell, even larger ones -- happen in front of government buildings that aren't covered by the media and melodramatically declared to be "a sign of our nation tearing itself apart"? So are these fringe types *really* that loud? Or are they being handed a megaphone so that they seem loud? There's lots of fail going around in our society at the moment IMO.
Well, I’m in trouble. Way back when this all started I had a mild tooth discomfort. Couldn’t go to my dentist because it had shut up shop and I was too cautious to go near the city hospital dentist. Now, I’m 99% certain it’s become an abscess. feth you coronavirus.
There is a dentist near me that is specifically still open for urgent matters. If you fancy a trip (I hear travel and hotel prices are way down recently, for some reason).
NinthMusketeer wrote: There is a dentist near me that is specifically still open for urgent matters. If you fancy a trip (I hear travel and hotel prices are way down recently, for some reason).
Well, I did want to go across the Atlantic this year...
hotsauceman1 wrote: I have tooth problems too so i think might be an abcess aswell and a wisdom tooth that is coming in sideways but i cant get it looked it either.
Ouch. You have my sympathies too. Hopefully we don’t lose any teeth over this.
I’m kicking myself for my laziness now. I should have went in January when I had the chance, just as I should have had my car looked at then too.
I mean it comes and goes, It might be an abscess, but it might also just but a gap developed in my teeth and now good gets stuck in there more easily, which seems to be the case sometimes.
Paint comes and goes,
The Wisdom tooth is the worst, no one is doing the actually the surgery to get it out.
Future War Cultist wrote: At this stage I don’t know. I can only try to find out. And I really do not want to go to the hospital.
I should have went in January when I was supposed to.
My sympathies - my wife's in the same situation, though maybe not quite as bad yet. She has an impacted wisdom tooth that needs to come out eventually and it's had a filling come loose in the last few days. She phoned the dentist to get some advice on what her options were and was told by the receptionist she should try getting some filling material online and doing it herself. Yeah...not going down that route. On the plus side, various parts of the NS are starting to re-open now so hopefully things like emergency dental surgery will be available fairly soon.
Ideally, people like dentists should be tested at least weekly, and their patients should be tested before attending. The dentist should have an N95 mask and a face shield.
nfe wrote: In what is presumably an effort to confirm that the UK is still an overtly classist society and that coronavirus is a secondary threat to the hardships of dusting or raising your own children, ministers have been doing the rounds telling everyone that your parents still can't visit your home but your cleaners and nannies should be activity encouraged to return to work.
It's perfect.
"Mum, I know you've really been wanting to see us and the kids. Well, it turns out you can - but you're going to have to clean the bathroom for us too..."
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The government advises you can't visit your family, but I'd guarantee that most people haven't been following that.
With the exception of one family who've just been operating as a single household with one of their parents, literally everyone I know has been. Lots of people will have been seeing their parents, but I'm fairly confident your assertion that MOST people have been visiting their families is absolute nonsense. You are not the default.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The government advises you can't visit your family, but I'd guarantee that most people haven't been following that.
With the exception of one family who've just been operating as a single household with one of their parents, literally everyone I know has been. Lots of people will have been seeing their parents, but I'm fairly confident your assertion that MOST people have been visiting their families is absolute nonsense. You are not the default.
Same here, don't know anyone that's been out visiting family - unless you count my brother and his wife doing the shopping for our parents. But that's just dropped off on the doorstep.
I think those with older grandparents/parents are avoiding them because of the high risk. Younger parents and kids are likely starting to crack right now with the long duration already and with the "talk of relaxation".
They might not be rushing to hug each other; but they will be starting to want to visit at 2m distance; wearing a facemask; washing hands etc.... Ergo those same measure that governments are advising for work conditions.
As time passes the power of the lockdown will reduce because its so abnormal to our regular lives. Shock news and reinforcing lockdowns due to a second spike will likely reinforce it all over again and perhaps strengthen it for a bit. Thrusting police/armed forces onto the streets would also, again, reinforce the impression of the lockdown.
That siad I'd say the UK public is actually behaving itself reasonably well in so much as they expect lockdown restrictions to actually be tighter than they are. Which is a double edged sword because in theory it means that because its lighter than we think it should be easier to follow; but it also means (like mothers days) its much easier to "justify" breaking them.
I see very little mixing going on.
A neighbour's dad has been in the house, but maybe just just inside (for an hour or so...).
Most others stand at the door and shout in.
But then we hear that colleagues are off to holiday homes for the weekend, or driving to the coast. There's nothing open to go to, and they'll be at the services for hours if they stop.
As for the 'Kids are immune', that still going on. It's not the kids that are at risk. They'll be fine.
But, they'll keep the lockdown going, when their household is laid up because they brought it in. Celebs are still trying to push that one.
On that note, working from home is more diffucult when the neighbour's kids are not at school. Shrieking in the garden when you're trying to have a meeting really gets tiring.
Yeah, people will be going and standing outside, or sitting in back gardens. I know my parents have been doing that with my grandparents. I don't see a problem with it in any way.
I also don't see issues with people going to second properties.
As for the 'Kids are immune', that still going on. It's not the kids that are at risk. They'll be fine.
But, they'll keep the lockdown going, when their household is laid up because they brought it in. Celebs are still trying to push that one.
On that note, working from home is more diffucult when the neighbour's kids are not at school. Shrieking in the garden when you're trying to have a meeting really gets tiring.
Schools are germ factories at the best of times. We all get sick at the start of every damn term.
I feel your pain on the working from home. Each week I work from home, I spend most of my time with my 7 year old snuggling up to me on the sofa and squirming his feet under my arse. It got old pretty quick.
I didn't say you were. By saying you're not the default I mean your liberty over everything else position is not the norm.
similarly, its impossible to prove that your position is the default.
I didn't 'guarantee' a generalisation.
That said, we do have studies regarding the numbers of people not following advice. And guess whose observations they support?
If thats what you choose to infer from my posts, then so be it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looks like I'll be having home hair cuts for even longer if NZ is anything to go by. people waiting at barbers for haircuts in the middle of the night according to BBC
Future War Cultist wrote: At this stage I don’t know. I can only try to find out. And I really do not want to go to the hospital.
I should have went in January when I was supposed to.
they've set up special dental centres about the place where the dentists can wear full body suit PPE & respirators and the dental suits can be cleaned after each patient (apparently they need to wait 45 mins after a patient has been dealt with to let droplets settle out of the air before cleaning. It's the drills & water picks that are the real issue as they make droplet clouds that are great for carrying virus
but equally important your normal dentist can (and is encouraged to) prescribe antibiotics which should ease toothache caused by an infection/abscess so if you need help give them a ring
As for the 'Kids are immune', that still going on. It's not the kids that are at risk. They'll be fine.
But, they'll keep the lockdown going, when their household is laid up because they brought it in. Celebs are still trying to push that one.
On that note, working from home is more diffucult when the neighbour's kids are not at school. Shrieking in the garden when you're trying to have a meeting really gets tiring.
Schools are germ factories at the best of times. We all get sick at the start of every damn term.
I feel your pain on the working from home. Each week I work from home, I spend most of my time with my 7 year old snuggling up to me on the sofa and squirming his feet under my arse. It got old pretty quick.
I agree completely. It happens every time you switch schools as well. There's a localized patina of filth that one has to experience and become accustomed to.
Future War Cultist wrote: Well, I’m in trouble. Way back when this all started I had a mild tooth discomfort. Couldn’t go to my dentist because it had shut up shop and I was too cautious to go near the city hospital dentist. Now, I’m 99% certain it’s become an abscess. feth you coronavirus.
Contact your GP, if it's an abscess then it can potentially be mitigated by antibiotics. Dad had one that was in a tricky place to drain, and so managing flare ups with antibiotics until it developed enough for the dentist to get at it was what he did for several years.
It might be that the GP will be reluctant to prescribe antibiotics without confirmation from a dental exam, but if you have a conversation then at least you might be able to score some strong pain relief.
That should all be doable over the phone and with minimal contact.
So report from the weekly shop - MY GODS THERE ARE CARS ON THE ROAD
With businesses starting to open up there was a very different air going around today. First up you can tell builders are working again. Concrete is moving around; work lorries and trucks are doing the rounds and whilst the builders merchants gates were still shut, they've a man on the gate and they are admitting trade vehicles. Clearly popping in for one or two items is out; but for those needing supplies they can now get at them.
Shopping wise a few more groups in the supermarkets yet again; lines and movement were pretty standard but there's a general air of things relaxing just a bit here and there around the place. More cars on the road - even an actual attempt at rush-hour. More people still out and around walking.
You can still see social distancing going on, you can still see edges of caution; but there's also a bit of an air of "Oh are we near the end".
Even though government has only technically relaxed things a little.
This weekend will be when we see the change(?) with warm weather forecast, see if folks use their new freedom to sunbathe again, or visit places further afield.
similarly, its impossible to prove that your position is the default.
I was just making a statement of my opinion.
The polling evidence is that almost half the population are down with the lockdown, most of the rest aren't happy but they're bearing up, and there are under 10% flouters.
I pray that this just means that the majority of them had outbreaks before those 7 days and were simply untested so it wasn't being recorded because that's an insane spread in a very specific section all over the country at once.
That either means we are going to hit wave-2 of a national outbreak or there's been some kind of critical failing specifically in carehomes.
similarly, its impossible to prove that your position is the default.
I was just making a statement of my opinion.
The polling evidence is that almost half the population are down with the lockdown, most of the rest aren't happy but they're bearing up, and there are under 10% flouters.
Im sure no one would bend the truth when polled about potentially breaking the 'rules' ha
I saw a guy clingfilming his steering wheel the other day while walking across camp. The world has gone crazy.
Overread wrote: or there's been some kind of critical failing specifically in carehomes.
That has happened in far too many cases in Canada and the US during this disaster.
A lot of nursing homes and assisted living facilities share the same employees. That's how it can spread so quickly among those places. A nurse works at one place on Monday, goes to another on Tuesday, etc, unknowingly spreading the disease as they go.
similarly, its impossible to prove that your position is the default.
I was just making a statement of my opinion.
The polling evidence is that almost half the population are down with the lockdown, most of the rest aren't happy but they're bearing up, and there are under 10% flouters.
Im sure no one would bend the truth when polled about potentially breaking the 'rules' ha
Analysis suggests men between 18-24 break lockdown advice most often, at about 50% of them. Presumably some are not doing so to see their fanily but to see each other. Every other demographic has a clear majority observinv it, in Rapidly increasing numbers as you move up in age.
Other than confidence in your own guesses, why do you think a significant majority of persons that say they are following advice when polled anonymously are lying AND that of those persons virtually all are ignoring rules to see family and aren't just going out twice a day, seeing friends or whatever?
I pray that this just means that the majority of them had outbreaks before those 7 days and were simply untested so it wasn't being recorded because that's an insane spread in a very specific section all over the country at once.
Thats what its gonna be. You'd have no way of knowing how new the infection was without continuous testing over a couple weeks and being lucky enough to catch it right as it showed up.
Metronidazole tastes like gak. feth you very much coronavirus.
You guys were absolutely right about testing at dentists. They should have been considered essential services and thus they should have made plans to keep them safely open.
Kilkrazy wrote: Tattoo studios are considered essential services?
Dunno if anyone explcitily called them essential, but some US states and a couple other countries had them amongst the first businesses permitted to reopen.
That's true. I mean about reputable tattooists being hygienic.
It's more a matter of social distancing. The best way to catch the virus is to spend a lot of time in close proximity with someone who's got it. This can be reduced by wearing appropriate PPE.
This is a similar situation for a tattooist and a dentist. It's probably worse for a dentist because there is pretty close face to face work involved.
The problem is we haven't got enough PPE in the UK.
Kilkrazy wrote: Tattoo studios are considered essential services?
Some places regarded them as that.
god knows why, believe in the US in some states that was the case and over here they got an early easing of the lockdown aswell...
Don't ask me why but the parties and population gave harsh critic for that to the federal council.
It's a matter of social distancing. The best way to catch the virus is to spend a lot of time in close proximity with someone who's got it. This can be reduced by wearing appropriate PPE.
This is a similar situation for a tattooist and a dentist. It's probably worse for a dentist because there is pretty close face to face work involved.
The problem is we haven't got enough PPE in the UK.
Yeah. I guess with businesses being allowed to open it might be granted to people like tattooers to take it on their own risk. I'm not really sure how it works, with hospitality not being allowed to open until july earliest. but who mandates which businesses fall into which category?
Also, with tattooers being self employed, the support they get from government might be somewhat limited.
It's a matter of social distancing. The best way to catch the virus is to spend a lot of time in close proximity with someone who's got it. This can be reduced by wearing appropriate PPE.
This is a similar situation for a tattooist and a dentist. It's probably worse for a dentist because there is pretty close face to face work involved.
The problem is we haven't got enough PPE in the UK.
Yeah. I guess with businesses being allowed to open it might be granted to people like tattooers to take it on their own risk. I'm not really sure how it works, with hospitality not being allowed to open until july earliest. but who mandates which businesses fall into which category?
Also, with tattooers being self employed, the support they get from government might be somewhat limited.
Yes, all good points.
The thing is, when we're dealing with an infectious disease, it's not just the tattooist and client putting themselves at risk, it's everyone they come into close contact with at home.
A kot of dentists are self-employed. If you've got a jaw abscess, dental surgery may be a lot more essential than getting inked, and worth the risk of spreading infection. (Plus, test, test, test, and more PPE!)
IDK how the government makes these decisions. There is a serious lack of transparency about the data they use.
Is there anything concrete saying that they don't? an educated assumption would assume that the effective antibodies will remain, at least for a short period.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Is there anything concrete saying that they don't? an educated assumption would assume that the effective antibodies will remain, at least for a short period.
Munich had a cluster of patients that were tested regularly.
It seems that Antibodies don't persist really that much.
That beeing said it is a small cluster of patients for it but it is further evidence to what was assumed to allready be the case due to multiple points people having gotten more then 1 infection allready.
Study suggests a quarter of the population may have already had the disease in whichever form.
which means jack all if we don't hold on to anticells, which seemingly is the core issue sofar.
Which is dubious study to begin with. Studies indicate spain has got about 2 million people infected total out of 47 million. Less than 5%. Doubtful uk has got 5 times as many without similar increase in deaths.
A small study suggesting that there is an effective immune response once recovered. it has limitations in the small size and quick re-test period. I guess the question is more, how long does the immunity last?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Is there anything concrete saying that they don't? an educated assumption would assume that the effective antibodies will remain, at least for a short period.
Apart from studies not showing much if any? Plus better to assume this corona is like previous corona virus unless evidence points otherwise. Previous corona viruses haven"t given much of longterm immunity. And being 4-8 weeks safe isn't much of help.
A small study suggesting that there is an effective immune response once recovered. it has limitations in the small size and quick re-test period. I guess the question is more, how long does the immunity last?
compared to the munich cluster study which are actual humans compared to an Apebased study?
ehhh, i remain that it is more likely then not that Humans will not have longterm capability which makes Herdimmunity a pipedream
I'm inclined to agree, if you go off comparison to other coronas, but is it our immunity, or the virus mutating? Id like to hope that if the virus has to mutate like flu and the like, it will become (even) less deadly in the longer term.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm inclined to agree, if you go off comparison to other coronas, but is it our immunity, or the virus mutating? Id like to hope that if the virus has to mutate like flu and the like, it will become (even) less deadly in the longer term.
Yes, if the virus mutates, which if it becomes seasonal it will, it will become less deadly as it adapts to the host species. Remember that the virus seeks only to reproduce, not to kill its allotted average number of humans per cycle.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm inclined to agree, if you go off comparison to other coronas, but is it our immunity, or the virus mutating? Id like to hope that if the virus has to mutate like flu and the like, it will become (even) less deadly in the longer term.
Yes, if the virus mutates, which if it becomes seasonal it will, it will become less deadly as it adapts to the host species. Remember that the virus seeks only to reproduce, not to kill its allotted average number of humans per cycle.
Virus mutation is entirely random, due to errors in the RNA replication process. You can't definitely say it will or won't mutate, or that it will or won't become less deadly as a result.
A factory in Colombia is making hospital beds that can be turned into a coffin if the patient dies
These dual-purpose beds are designed for #COVID19 patients
Bloody hell eh ? Bet that'll do wonders for your morale, finally get into hospital, taken to the ward and then.... " we have a special bed for you" ...
I wonder how long lasting and durable they are against water and spillage. Or even how comfortable and suitable they are as a bed. It just seems that you're laying on a cardbox sheet with a few supports underneath.
I get that during a crisis one can't be too picky, but at the same time I'd wager America should be able to mass produce something to a slightly higher degree of standard.
Then again I'm guessing they'll be for cheap export to poorer nations unable to afford better and potentially in greater need of convertible beds...
Regarding the "if" this virus mutates and adapts, that isn't an if. Moving a virus into a new host species changes the evolutionary immune system pressure on the virus -- which itself is mutable by dint of the poor error checking in an enzyme called a viral polymerase. Think of it as a xerox machine for nucleic acids (the genome) that however has random errors every time it makes a zerox. There are literally so many copies of a virus in an infected person that it becomes the old "infinite number of monkeys" typing -- and one or another of the slightly altered viruses codes for a different, but useful, protein. Perhaps it is more highly expressed, changing a balance between other cellular regulators. Perhaps it more closely resembles the human, rather than bat, cell wall protien and thus enables the virus to more effectively escape detection.
Point is, you are never going to look at a single virus, but a population of viruses, even in one person. Things that would be killed off by the immune systems of bats and pangolins manage to escape immune surveillance, and if they are truly better evolved for human reproduction they gradually (in not that many passes through human hosts) become more and more frequently found in the population of virus being spread.
A factory in Colombia is making hospital beds that can be turned into a coffin if the patient dies
These dual-purpose beds are designed for #COVID19 patients
Bloody hell eh ? Bet that'll do wonders for your morale, finally get into hospital, taken to the ward and then.... " we have a special bed for you" ...
what a time to be ali....oh, actually
Yeah, thats a really bad idea.
Way more expensive then a bed and a normal coffin I'm sure. Bedside manner is an important part of medicine, but you toss that right out if the patient's are in a literal coffin.
This disease isn't dangerous enough that we need to burn everything that it contacted. This isn't a cheap SYFY drama. Besides, even if it was, you'd still need to throw the bed away if the patient survived. So you wasted the coffin part of the bed.
You know though, if one were inclined to overreact, and saw this report, I could see the coffin beds being authorized. As time has borne out, definitely not a major threat, but some outbreaks in the past have been made much worse by improper care of the deceased- I know ebola especially tends to spread while disposing of the bodies.
I've no knowledge of how sophisticated, or unsophisticated Colombia's medical service is, but this may have been someone thinking it was the best they could do with what they had available.Morbid, to be sure- but logical if you were intent on avoiding infection by the dead.
Ebola, as far as I'm casually aware, spread not specifically because of contact with the dead, but because of an almost total lack of hygiene practice and use of traditional body preparation methods that basically brought those treating the body into contact with a lot of bodily fluids. Basically the ideal situation for the Ebola to spread.
That's partly why it had such a dramatic effect in the countries it hit, but didn't really spread into the "western world" in any great manner. It spread through direct body fluid exchange/contact.
Indeed. It was an unfortunate issue with the local culture that resulted in the living contacting the dead's bodily fluids during the burial process.
Which is why Ebola was never ever a threat to the larger world. Any society that practices even century old hygiene practices would see little to no spread of Ebola.
A small study suggesting that there is an effective immune response once recovered. it has limitations in the small size and quick re-test period. I guess the question is more, how long does the immunity last?
They've found wonder drugs for just about everything in one animal study or another, just to see the compounds fail spectacularly during human trials. That's why they do human trials. What you describe isn't clinical development, but the same logic applies.
As an aside, that's also why they do pediatric studies. Because children are not simply little adults. Drugs may have more or less efficacy in kids. It isn't intuitive.
The media tends to be AWFUL at reporting the results of studies, which is something people need to keep in mind during this time. It's crazy just how much these reporters get wrong and how often they get it wrong. We can be hopeful, but we need to take this stuff with that giant grain of salt meme pic.
I think a lot of the errors come not just from fact being turned into opinion; but also because a lot of news references each other - then makes it shorter. So when something gets re-written a dozen times and then cut in half a few more you can end up with minor facts getting highlighted; main facts getting missed out and the original meaning lost. Same as if you've ever played Chinese Whispers.
A pizza place here had the unfortunate timing of opening up just as the lockdown began. Somebody here said try to help the little businesses through this and I took that to heart. And I’m glad that I did because it was really good pizza.
In all seriousness think that there will be a bit of a boom when it’s safe to go back out in big numbers?
What is the average American feeling down there? Are people concerned? You can’t tell from US media because it’s so partisan. It seems like 100,000 deaths will be coming an about a week. Will that benchmark alarm people or are folks kind of over this whole Coronavirus virus thing?
That's one thing I'd like to hear the answer to as well. My psychology doesn't click with crisis* so I have no idea what a normal person feels like save hearing it from others.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: What is the average American feeling down there? Are people concerned? You can’t tell from US media because it’s so partisan. It seems like 100,000 deaths will be coming an about a week. Will that benchmark alarm people or are folks kind of over this whole Coronavirus virus thing?
People are concerned about their grandparents getting it, but a lot of people I've talked to aren't as concerned about themselves catching it. The feeling I've gotten talking to others is that they are ready for the quarantine to end for the country at large and that only hotspots/those most susceptible should be locked down at this point. The US is so large and varied that a blanket lockdown just isn't what is needed right now.
Edit: Personally, idk what the right choice is. If the lockdown ended it wouldn't scare me, but I'm also young and don't have any respiratory issues. The 100k benchmark will alarm people who are already alarmed by the disease, but I doubt it will alarm people who are ready for the lockdown to end.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: What is the average American feeling down there? Are people concerned? You can’t tell from US media because it’s so partisan. It seems like 100,000 deaths will be coming an about a week. Will that benchmark alarm people or are folks kind of over this whole Coronavirus virus thing?
Central Florida here.
It's really inconsistent. If you believe it is a serious matter, you're social distancing in public, and wearing a mask- my sons and I do, and there's a vague sense of unease on our rare trips out. That being said, you'll see masks in uniform use in some stores, but in most it's at best 1/3 of people wearing them, and many people have decided that the quarantine isn't worth doing. My jiujitsu gym started breaking it two weeks ago or so for people to wrestle each other. I didn't attend any of those practices- because I'm not invested enough to pick up a ticket for violating local ordnances. It'll officially be open Monday, and once it is then I'll probably start my son back up in it. Once he starts, my family's exposed to that gym's attendance, so we'll broaden from 1 family exposure to 15 or so families. Unlike my wife and I, he's extremely social, and the isolation is really wearing on him. My opinion is that the full lockdown can't hold- what you need to do now is find the smallest sustainable circle you can handle for the foreseeable future.
Heck, visiting my school all of the office staff and administrators had given up on masks, while the teachers who were there to clean out classrooms and drop off keys were masked. Opinions, and responses, vary wildly, but are trending towards acceptance, with or without precautions. Which is to be expected, considering our official response has been do your own thing.
That is natural. It's impossible for humans to maintain a heightened state of readiness for long periods of time, whether that's a single person, or an entire population. It's possible to 'surge' to paraphrase my boss' favourite buzzword, but not indefinitely.
How much of that is just because of continued testing though? They have almost doubled the amount of tests in the last 15 days and the % of infected has dropped overall.
350k tests done on 5/1 with 5.88% testing postive, to 645k done by 5/15 with 5.09% testing positive.
Edit: for anyone curious, the data Texas' department of health has on the link above is the most detailed I've found so far if anyone else was interested. 40% of fatalaties so far are for people who are 80+.
We won't really know until we can compare seasonal death counts. The months with the biggest difference from previous years we can assume are the ones with the most virus casualties.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We won't really know until we can compare seasonal death counts. The months with the biggest difference from previous years we can assume are the ones with the most virus casualties.
We've been doing that already, actually. Virus death toll so far is probably at least twice what's been reported in the US, going by that data.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We won't really know until we can compare seasonal death counts. The months with the biggest difference from previous years we can assume are the ones with the most virus casualties.
We've been doing that already, actually. Virus death toll so far is probably at least twice what's been reported in the US, going by that data.
I know; I was referring to this month specifically. Obviously we cannot compare numbers yet, because the month is not over.
So the viral thought for this day is hardening an apartment or condominium against cross infection. Most such buildings, even those with HVAC systems set individually per unit dwelling, have avenues of air inflow and outflow that affect other condos. For example, most kitchen and bathrooms are vented to the roofs, often by a common duct. The door to the hallway will have either negative or positive pressure flow through it depending on the structure, the design, etc, meaning air either is sucked constantly FROM your apartment out to the hall, or FROM your hall into your apartment. A low pressure vent to roof duct for exhaust from a stove or offgassing duct for toilets and bathrooms will also similarly bring air from other apartments into your own apartment if you are not careful. This can be field expediently fixed by a combination of duct tape over the intake/outtake vent holes, and the hepa style filter bag (cut to fit) material from vaccum cleaners. The front door, you should test yourself, and as a practice, open windows that allow vented air flow from the outside to disperse any trace cross contamination may be advisable.
Cats can apparently share this disease back and forth with people, but dogs, apparently, do not sicken from it.
That was the covid thought of the day, now consider well hardening your apartments (or hardening the airflow between apartments for older relatives you know) with such methods as you can devise, to limit in apartment spread of this virus. As things begin to reopen, cases will rise, or if they don't reopen now, cases will EVENTUALLY rise. Simple techniques like duct tape + hepa filtration in the bathroom, an open window, and the kitchen, similarly, can lower relative risk from this. If 20 bucks of filter + a roll of tape saves your life, it will have been money well invested. I have to do that in dollars, because if I understand it right, in England one would say 20 pounds of tape, which sounds heavy.
Note that being able to smell other people's cooking is a major warning sign, or other people's smoking. If you can smell those, you could smell their sneezes, too.
I've read that pets can spread the virus because it sticks to their fur when stroked, and someone else can pick it up when petting them. I haven't read any evidence of cats or dogs actually catching the virus and generating new particles.
Your advice about cross-infection in shared dwellings is good, as far as I can tell from my general knowldge. It highlights the fact that lower income people are more affected, because they live in more confined conditions.
I think the cats testing positive for the virus would suggest that they can actually catch and reproduce the virus. I wouldn't think the small amounts that a human would shed would build up enough inside the cat to actually trigger a positive test result, which has happened with multiple cat species at this point. If the cat were a deadend for the virus it shouldn't test positive unless the sample was contaminated.
Based on somewhat limited research, cats can get infected and infect other cats, but not humans. Cats can suffer symptoms. Animals like mink and ferret can also be infected. Bigger cats in zoo's have caught the virus and have shown some symptoms. On dogs its unclear, they might test positive, but symptoms or spread are doubtful.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yet another poor shotgun decision taken without consideration at the start of lockdown.
Has this government actually got any decisions correct during this? They demand people use common sense, but seeing as the prime minister and health minister have both had the virus, seem to be lacking in common sense themselves.
Even the furlough scheme came from the Unions and Labour.
Silver lining to the idiocy in Hyde park today has to be #I AM NOT MAN on Twitter Just don't fall down the deep deep rabbit hole of the people supporting the "protest"
GoatboyBeta wrote: Silver lining to the idiocy in Hyde park today has to be #I AM NOT MAN on Twitter Just don't fall down the deep deep rabbit hole of the people supporting the "protest"
GoatboyBeta wrote: Silver lining to the idiocy in Hyde park today has to be #I AM NOT MAN on Twitter Just don't fall down the deep deep rabbit hole of the people supporting the "protest"
Fairly sure that was fethwit in chief, David Icke?
I just saw the latest "Covid is a conspiracy!" meme.
It says two identical twin girls drank for the same covid contaminated cup. One got covid, the other didn't.
Therefore, CONSPIRACY!
After recovering from the concussion I gave myself facepalming, i replied that it was simple: One twin made her resistance roll, the other didn't. Yes, as a gamer I occasionally see things like that.
Perhaps the one who drunk first sucked up most of the covid in the cup if it were on the surface. Perhaps the other one had recently taken vitamin c which boosted her immune system, or taken zinc which can impede viral replication. Perhaps the other one had recently had an infection that weakened her immune system briefly.
"Next, he clarified: “When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases.”"
Ah so that's why trump thinks testing is overrated.
Well guess it would be easier to brush away if you didn't test and could thus claim no cases.
Matt Swain wrote: I just saw the latest "Covid is a conspiracy!" meme.
It says two identical twin girls drank for the same covid contaminated cup. One got covid, the other didn't.
Therefore, CONSPIRACY!
After recovering from the concussion I gave myself facepalming, i replied that it was simple: One twin made her resistance roll, the other didn't. Yes, as a gamer I occasionally see things like that.
Perhaps the one who drunk first sucked up most of the covid in the cup if it were on the surface. Perhaps the other one had recently taken vitamin c which boosted her immune system, or taken zinc which can impede viral replication. Perhaps the other one had recently had an infection that weakened her immune system briefly.
Matt Swain wrote: I just saw the latest "Covid is a conspiracy!" meme.
It says two identical twin girls drank for the same covid contaminated cup. One got covid, the other didn't.
Therefore, CONSPIRACY!
After recovering from the concussion I gave myself facepalming, i replied that it was simple: One twin made her resistance roll, the other didn't. Yes, as a gamer I occasionally see things like that.
Perhaps the one who drunk first sucked up most of the covid in the cup if it were on the surface. Perhaps the other one had recently taken vitamin c which boosted her immune system, or taken zinc which can impede viral replication. Perhaps the other one had recently had an infection that weakened her immune system briefly.
But a conspiracy? Really?
To paraphrase The Matrix.
"There is no cup."
Or twins.
Or conspiracy, but that much is self evident.
The version of that meme I've seen is an excuse to get people to google 2 Girls 1 Cup. I'm reasonably sure it's not a real thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've read that pets can spread the virus because it sticks to their fur when stroked, and someone else can pick it up when petting them. I haven't read any evidence of cats or dogs actually catching the virus and generating new particles.
Several adult tigers have tested positive for covid, and I suspect they're not getting picked up and stroked much
It seems we infect felines, but not the other way around.
Matt Swain wrote: I just saw the latest "Covid is a conspiracy!" meme.
It says two identical twin girls drank for the same covid contaminated cup. One got covid, the other didn't.
Therefore, CONSPIRACY!
After recovering from the concussion I gave myself facepalming, i replied that it was simple: One twin made her resistance roll, the other didn't. Yes, as a gamer I occasionally see things like that.
Perhaps the one who drunk first sucked up most of the covid in the cup if it were on the surface. Perhaps the other one had recently taken vitamin c which boosted her immune system, or taken zinc which can impede viral replication. Perhaps the other one had recently had an infection that weakened her immune system briefly.
But a conspiracy? Really?
To paraphrase The Matrix.
"There is no cup."
Or twins.
Or conspiracy, but that much is self evident.
The version of that meme I've seen is an excuse to get people to google 2 Girls 1 Cup. I'm reasonably sure it's not a real thing.
Was watching random stuff on Youtube and came across a video where a Lion Sanctuary keeper was talking about how cats can have all sorts of problems with their own coronavirus strains, and that it can lead to all sorts of issues especially with weakened immune systems.
Something that I think we take for granted with people is just how much our populations interact and intermix relative to a lot of wild animal populations, and how much effort keepers/zoos/hobbiests/sanctuaries/breeders/etc go to in keeping all sorts of animals safe with things like quarantine procedures and keeping animals separate enclosures and the like specifically to avoid disease transmission. It helps that humans have widespread access to medical care (even if we feel it's often inadequate in many cases), but there appears to just be a lot more mindfulness of it with animals than people.
tneva82 wrote: School reopenings here started well. New corona cases detected in school. Hardly surprising news.
Annnnd no one was surprised by that.
Honestly anyone surprised that schools will start spreading the virus need their heads checking. Schools are always hotbeds of exchange of sickness; esp in modern times with huge populations and schools crossing huge work and social boundaries and gathering people together. It's not like the ancient days when everyone at school also attended the same church, general store etc....
Heck there's another huge melting pot - religious services. Whilst fewer days a week and typically less time its still a ripe place to gather a large segment of the population together to swap sickness.
Future War Cultist wrote: A pizza place here had the unfortunate timing of opening up just as the lockdown began. Somebody here said try to help the little businesses through this and I took that to heart. And I’m glad that I did because it was really good pizza.
An acquaintance of mine was caught with his brand new restaurant open just by a couple months. We're talking mega-posh, as in we're getting a Michelin star in 5 years, 60 euro 10-course tasting menu without drinks place.
In order to meet bank payments he's now doing burgers, wings, ribs and paellas to go. Slightly more expensive than your run of the mill fast food place but tremendous value.
Future War Cultist wrote: A pizza place here had the unfortunate timing of opening up just as the lockdown began. Somebody here said try to help the little businesses through this and I took that to heart. And I’m glad that I did because it was really good pizza.
An acquaintance of mine was caught with his brand new restaurant open just by a couple months. We're talking mega-posh, as in we're getting a Michelin star in 5 years, 60 euro 10-course tasting menu without drinks place.
€60 for a ten course tasting menu is extremely cheap
Future War Cultist wrote: A pizza place here had the unfortunate timing of opening up just as the lockdown began. Somebody here said try to help the little businesses through this and I took that to heart. And I’m glad that I did because it was really good pizza.
An acquaintance of mine was caught with his brand new restaurant open just by a couple months. We're talking mega-posh, as in we're getting a Michelin star in 5 years, 60 euro 10-course tasting menu without drinks place.
€60 for a ten course tasting menu is extremely cheap
That's how you start, and it's actually on the expensive side if you're hoping to get the Bib gourmand first.
Keep in mind this is Spain. There are actual Michelin-starred tasting menus for under 100€ so there's quite some competition there.
So third school in finland got corona case announced today. Real great start. 3rd day in school. Thanfully only 2 weeks or so left on school anymore(which makes desire to reopen them even more weird. All exams are done and numbers assigned. Usually these weeks are less hectic with school trips etc being common around this time but this year those are not happening...).
GoatboyBeta wrote: Silver lining to the idiocy in Hyde park today has to be #I AM NOT MAN on Twitter Just don't fall down the deep deep rabbit hole of the people supporting the "protest"
Fairly sure that was fethwit in chief, David Icke?
Not it wasn't.
It was Jeff Wyatt -- hung/hangs around with various rightwing fringe groups and a Tommy Robinson fan too.
Tunbridge Wells confirmed to have the lowest rate of infection in Kent, which is very good news for me.
Whilst I’m sure some would argue it means the town can reopen somewhat, suspect that’d just attract people from further afield, affecting our relative isolation.
But whilst I need to wait for pubs to reopen (and I’m choking for a proper proper Pint), it’s a wait I’m willing to put up with. Rather be sober than Ill!
Going back a few posts, there were some questions about the general American sentiment, here are my local thoughts for the state of WY......
My perception that the local American response in my rural, red state is that COVID-19 is not a real threat, we need to open up now, and we desperately all want to be back to normal.
We want that so bad, that I am 95% certain we will not "shelter-at-home" again no matter how many people start dying.
A very cruel, tiny minded part of me (we all have them) says ‘OK then, let’s all ignore the Expert Advice. Clearly their degrees, doctorates and collective decades of research knowledge is all just a sham. Re-open. Spit on each other. Herd Immunity’
And when the death toll climbs ever further, and worse, the virus mutates again, we can at last point to every single pseudo-science cretin, every woo peddler. Every agent provovacteur claiming it’s 5G, or Bill Gates behind it. Every last anti-Vaxxer. Every single idiot screwing this all up, and say?
[i]This. Is. On. You. You did this. No-one else.
Because whilst I regularly wash my hands for 20 seconds and have had to buy hand cream because my skin is dry as a very dry thing? They won’t be able to wash that blood off their hands.
I take it you’ve seen the story of that guy who dismissed the virus as a hoax until he got it and it nearly killed him and now he’s trying to spread the word?
I don’t know how to feel about that tbh...I want to say good for him for admitting that he was wrong and for changing his attitude but a big part of me is screaming “NO gak SHERLOCK!
Future War Cultist wrote: I take it you’ve seen the story of that guy who dismissed the virus as a hoax until he got it and it nearly killed him and now he’s trying to spread the word?
I don’t know how to feel about that tbh...I want to say good for him for admitting that he was wrong and for changing his attitude but a big part of me is screaming “NO gak SHERLOCK!
I've now resigned myself that it's unlikely I'm going to have any kind of close contact with friends or family for at least the rest of this year, and that is because of the utter and monumental failure of the government to protect the people and for the mainstream media or opposition to hold them to account in any meaningful way.
I'll almost certainly be working from home for at least a similar time - I'm extremely fortunate in this regard, there are large numbers of people who have effectively been forced back into the workplace where their employers have no way of guaranteeing their safety.
We have finally moved under 200 reported deaths per day, but rather than using the lockdown time to prepare contract and trace systems in place in an effort to monitor and control the spread of the virus, the effort has fallen apart in a string of cronyism and dodgy contracts to companies that aren't capable of fulfilling their tasks. And so all of that lockdown time is wasted. And guess what? The virus is still there and it's waiting, it didn't magically fething disappear.
The deaths in the UK are 30k to 50k or 60k depending on which reports you read. Yet when I was out in the car the other day, B&Q (a DIY store) was like a fething summer jamboree. Cars parked next to each other in spaces, and far, far too much rubbing of shoulders. Have people not read how contagious the virus is, how many people it has killed and continues to kill? I would be surprised if 1 in 20 is wearing a mask or gloves. Despite the advice of numerous medical bodies (and finally, the UK government as well) or the knowledge that countries like Japan and Korea, for whom wearing protective items is commonplace, the death count is in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands.
I read of the contact and trace measures and monitoring, the huge manpower being committed in countries like S. Korea and I realise that we have absolutely no chance - no chance - whatsoever in coming close to matching that level of organisation, the political or societal will. Instead, I'll have to keep prompting elderly and vulnerable friends and family to try and keep their guard up. Because the government is failing utterly in its task of protecting the people by the most effective means and we seem to have slipped back into the 'herd immunity' policy, despite many other countries showing how to effectively combat the virus.
And when the death toll climbs ever further, and worse, the virus mutates again, we can at last point to every single pseudo-science cretin, every woo peddler. Every agent provovacteur claiming it’s 5G, or Bill Gates behind it. Every last anti-Vaxxer. Every single idiot screwing this all up, and say?
.
There are plenty of lockdown sceptics who aren't conspiracy theorists or anti vaxxers. That's a poor tactic that's often rolled out whenever people present points against the lockdown in an attempt to infantilise their argument.
Puts the estimated IFR at 1.4% although this still seems a touch high if you consider that most believe actual infection rates are much higher. Consistent estimates of recovery rate are 97-99%
They say 'follow the science' yet they are not doing so.
In my opinion the government is in the middle of a sunk cost dilemma. They can't relax things any further without having to admit they were wrong, which would cause them a huge hit politically.
Also, its funny how 'herd immunity' has become this heretical snarl word. If a vaccine or treatment doesn't appear, herd immunity will likely be the only thing we have to rely on. It should be factored into every strategy.
I also heard a scientist today talking about how it might be possible that some people can be exposed to the virus but just not get sick. Their immune system just expels it or something.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: A very cruel, tiny minded part of me (we all have them) says ‘OK then, let’s all ignore the Expert Advice. Clearly their degrees, doctorates and collective decades of research knowledge is all just a sham. Re-open. Spit on each other. Herd Immunity’
And when the death toll climbs ever further, and worse, the virus mutates again, we can at last point to every single pseudo-science cretin, every woo peddler. Every agent provovacteur claiming it’s 5G, or Bill Gates behind it. Every last anti-Vaxxer. Every single idiot screwing this all up, and say?
This. Is. On. You. You did this. No-one else
Because whilst I regularly wash my hands for 20 seconds and have had to buy hand cream because my skin is dry as a very dry thing? They won’t be able to wash that blood off their hands.
This is pretty much how human history has been. You forget; they are already well-practiced experts on delusion. Pretending there's no blood on their own hands is easy as breathing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I also heard a scientist today talking about how it might be possible that some people can be exposed to the virus but just not get sick. Their immune system just expels it or something.
Leaving the rest to someone more charitable than I, on this particular point; yes that is how things normally work for disease.
Herd immunity is getting as many people as possible vaccinated so that those who can't don't get infected and can survive. Letting everybody get randomly infected and risking the death the weaker people is not herd immunity, that's just eugenics with extra steps.
Well no one seems to be mentioning it. Only whether or not folks have antibodies. Which is good, but there are evidently other means of fighting it off which may not be provable by testing, which is potentially very good.
Herd immunity is getting as many people as possible vaccinated so that those who can't don't get infected and can survive. Letting everybody get randomly infected and risking the death the weaker people is not herd immunity, that's just eugenics with extra steps.
a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune
There are a lot of people on the net who claim if we just let a "few" million people die of covid (They claim it's just 1.4% of the population, but covid death rates are higher in many areas so it could be far higher.) this thing called "herd immunity" will suddenly appear and make covid go away.
Ok, I have one question for them: My grandfather (I still miss him) used to tell me about his childhood and what polio was like. What is was like to see a quarantine sign on your friends house and not see him for weeks, or maybe forever. And it happened every year.
Polio came bac every year and left people across america dead of crippled. Herd immunity didn't make it go away, Jonas Salk made it go away with a vaccine.
Vaccines ended polio, they ended smallpox. Why should we believe the covid virus will fall to the awesome power of herd immunity when as far as I can tell no other disease in recent times has?
The last time a disease may have been overcome, possibly, by enough people dying of it to create herd immunity would be the black plague. Look at how many people had to die to possibly make herd immunity happen in that case.
I'm not buying the herd immunity theory. Anyone have any evidence as to why i should?
That's what vaccinations are for, not to render every single person immune to the disease, but to make enough immune as to limit the effective spread of a disease through a population.
It's well known and understood science at this point.
Anyone advocating that people should live or die as they may is, from a purely logical point of view, correct. That is the fastest way to achieve herd immunity in the absence of an effective vaccine.
What that argument fails to account for, of course, is the emotional impact on society those deaths will have, and all the consequential deaths from overwhelmed health services, which would be the outcome no matter the quality or preparedness of any given institution.
Your grandfather also would have pointed out that the very worst years of polio never involved more than about 50,000 cases, which is not by far enouhg to create herd immunity against the disease from recoverey and self immunization. Herd immunity isn't a thing in alaska yet, for example, although there are excellent arguments to be made that the essentail work personnel in NYC have accomplished a functional Covid herd immunity among their members, even as the stay at home (lets go Wellsian and call the stay at home/ luxury class the "Eloi" class, and the people who do actual work out of the house in NYC the "morloks".) Basically, new cases in NY have plummeted among morloks, with some 84 percent of the ongoing new cases occuring in the eloi class. The eloi haven't suddenly become more numerous and the morloks haven't all suddenly become less numerous, so something is shifting the spread of the disease from the people out and about to the people at home. Given about 1/3 of NYC and long island have been infected, this could be herd immunity with an escape group. Why? what could possibly, one asks, make it safer to rid the bus to the subway and after, work all day in a job meeting strangers, than it is to cower in your own apartment and telecommuting? I mean, the Eloi class are literally phoning it in, and only going out for the occasaional egg and milk run. On the surface, the morloks have it far more risky and have had it far more risky. Historically they were a huge caseload contribution, now, suddenly, their share is falling off. There is no vaccine in play in NYC, there is as yet little or no effective treatment for the disease (only supportive therapy that fails to budge the death rate more than about 16 percent in an optimal case). This leaves either 1) Morloks suddenly smarter than eloi, are better at handwashing, or (more likely) 2) Morlok subpopulations are well into herd immunity already.
Also, your understanding of polio is not a perfect analogy. Traditionally polio was a childhood disease of most people, and it was with the advent of sanitation (widespread) and similar public health advances that it advanced from a disease (mostly asymptomatic) of very young children to a much more paralytic and dangerous disease of older children and adults. The opportunity to catch polio as an adult (where its bad effects were easily 10 to 100 times more common) was tied to the absence of having caught it as kids. There is no counterexample to herd immunity here -- its a situation where the natural process of adaptive auto-vaccination was removed by improved plumbing, by water treatement, by lower prevalence in the community. Polio as a PROBLEM was a side effect of things getting better enough that everyone wasn't so likely exposed as kids, when it showed up to hit the population again, the sudden absence of herd immunity in adults meant it became a bad and terrifying issue.
Even so, it was hitting a tiny number of people and not enouhg in any one outbreak to shift the needle to herd immunity in the USA -- 60 or even 100k cases a year is a drop in an epidemic bucket, iwth only a couple thousand dying. Polio was still case for case FAR worse a disease to catch than Covid, but it didn't propagate as widely or as profoundly. In western countries, this was a sanitation effect, in places like India, though, it was pure herd immunity built up from childhood. After the vaccines caught on in both places, it was herd immunity again.
Now lest we forget, smallpox was taken out by carefully targetted herd immunization efforts. This worked even in places like India and west africa, both of which had actual religions built around worshiping the disease, from time immemorial.
Saying you don't believe in herd immunity is like saying you don't believe in evolution, because the survival of the fittest organisms in a series of ongoing competition scenarios could also be .. well, loaded dice and lots of invuln saves? Its got a wide body of evidence throughout modern epidemiology that is compatible with herd immunity being a thing, and NOT compatible with herd immunity being not a thing.
When herd immunity was built up against polio by vaccination, there were of course subgroups in the population that didn't share that protection (like the amish) .. and it was in these groups the last outbreaks occured in the US (less than 200 cases, in the last one, I believe). These infections failed to break out into the larger population and spread, failed to create waves of the disease across the US, failed to transmit it from county to county. Because herd immunity.
Dukeofstuff, first off you never met my grandfather and you don't know what he would have pointed out.
Secondly, herd immunity as far as I know never effecitvely eradicated a single disease. It may have reduced their death tolls but it took vaccinations to effectively make them non issues to the vast majority of the human race.
As to your assertion that not believing in herd immunity is like not believing in evolution, by linking your argument for herd immunity to evolution your shoot the idea of letting herd immunity solve the covid situation right in the foot.
I know evolution happens and it is a generational process, which mean it effectively does not happen on a human time scale. Evolution is linked to reproduction, which is why so many bacteria evolve immunity to antibiotics, bacteria reproduce on a time frame measured in hours. Bacteria undergo a thousand or more generations in a year. We can see bacteria evolve on a human time scale.
Likewise insects who can have a couple dozen generations a year can evolve resistance to pesticides on a human perceptible scale.
Human generations can be said to take at least 18 or so years. (Yes I know some girls have gotten pregnant at 12 or so, I'm ignoring extreme cases and focusing on the median.)
So even if we assume evolution could produce a herd immunity effect in as little as 5 generations it's 90 years until that fifth generation happens, at a minimum.
So waiting for herd immunity to evolve will take more than a human lifetime, typically, and condemn generations to living with the covid scare coming back every year.
So I'm not waiting. I don't care if we have to "gut the military" (Which is what some people call no increasing military spending every year, let alone reducing it in any way) to finance covid vaccine research, we go with vaccine research.
I believe we should start transferring money from the military finding to covid vaccine research, and keep it up till we get it. Manhattan project levels of funding and research till we get the vaccine.
Vaccine research is happening. In multiple places with multiple organizations.
But vaccine research takes time.
You need to
a) actually develop a vaccine that works, which is trial and error. Somewhat informed trial and error, but that's still a lot of testing, which takes time.
b) actually make sure that vaccine is safe, and doesn't cause even harmful side effects. That means animal trials, and then human trials on people who don't have it, because its a vaccine and not a cure. So you can't just test it on people who have it and are likely to die anyway (because that does no good), you have to do a lot of ethical protection for the volunteers who are going to be exposed to the virus with the hope that the vaccine will actually work.
c) manufacture the vaccine, in this case, for the entire global population (in theory, in practice, this is going to be prioritized relatively unfairly, just by the sheer number of governments and corporations involved)
Each of those steps takes months or years to do properly, regardless of how many times various talking heads on the TV say 'we'll have one by the end of the year.'
Because that's a stupid thing to say, because a) can't be guaranteed, and just 'having' a vaccine still means you've got steps b) and c) to do.
As an example, trials for Ebola vaccines started in 2014, and the successful ones weren't approved until the end of 2019.
-----
Now, a couple outfits (Oxford Uni, particularly) have decided that they have a workable vaccine candidate already, and have started production prematurely and are going to backfill doing the work to make sure they really do have a working and safe vaccine. Odds of a safe and effective vaccine being produced by this methodology are not great. I know I'll aim for the back of the line if they actually get to distribution. Let someone else be the guinea pig for a rush job on delicate science.
I nevr said we can have one by the end of you year, I'm not the guy who said that.
I do thinkwe should do all we can to get one as soon as possible. I'd like to think a full blown effort could do it in much sooner than 5 years I'm not sure it could.
Matt Swain wrote: I nevr said we can have one by the end of you year, I'm not the guy who said that.
I do think we should do all we can to get one as soon as possible. I'd like to think a full blown effort could do it in much sooner than 5 years I'm not sure it could.
At a certain point, you run out of qualified virologists and lab space, and run into a 'too many cooks' problem. As it is, with the diversity of locations and institutions, a lot of different money piles are tapped, and recruiting coverage looks to be really good (to the point of probably stretching the pool of candidates experience with labwork and willing and able to help). It isn't a big pool, either. The number of virology graduates in 2017 in the US was... 19, and that number was up from previous years. (And those graduates would have limited work experience now in 2020). And its not a specialization where you can just bang out more graduates on a whim.
Now there are a lot of biology lab techs that would also be required, but I can tell you from my own job searches over the last decade that they're constantly in demand- there's simply too few of them in circulation (I come across lab tech positions because my own field uses 'technician' a lot for some reason, and a lot of university job search engines are rubbish).
Few years back, my Dad had a minor heart attack. Few stents and a change of lifestyle later and he’s fine and dandy.
Because there was space in a hospital for him.
My Mum finally lost her cancer battle last year. She’d been fighting it through various treatments for around a decade. Chemo, tupenny-all-out etc.
Because the health service had the time and resources.
When I was 16 and just starting to sit my GCSEs? Yeah my appendix ruptured. Emergency operation later, and here I am.
Because the health service had the time and resources.
Remember, we’re truly spoiled in the modern day. Broken limbs are rarely fatal. Even coronavirus is relatively rarely fatal. Because, for now, we have the resources to tackle it. Ventilators etc.
But just because you survive it, doesn’t mean you survive it unscathed. Facebook friend has had the virus. He’s not dead - but his lungs are permanently damaged.
Routine but life saving treatments could be lost if this spirals out of control. That’s an ever higher death toll, linked to, but not directly caused by coronavirus.
The more cases in a given hospital, the higher the risk to hospital staff. What happens if Doctors and Nurses start coming down with it? Ever greater strain. The greater the strain, the greater the death toll.
I lost my Mum last year, because sadly her cancer became incurable. I am not prepared to lose anyone else, not from something actually avoidable.
By all means be sceptical. Definitely question advice. But for now? As long as you’re following it? We’re golden. But those Words Not Allowed on Dakka flouting it? The idiots demanding their barber go back to work etc? Those claiming this is all just a conspiracy by Big Pharma whilst entirely coincidentally flogging their own ‘miracle cures’ (which certainly isn’t bleach, despite it smelling like bleach and actually being bleach it’s definitely not actually bleach)? The morons burning down 5G towers? No. No no no.
Because I’ve been round the block often enough and seen enough of the world’s dark sense of humour to know, inexplicably, they all too rarely carry the can for the harm they cause others.
To get melodramatic? Give me a list of 100 people you know. This list must include your nuclear family and extended family, and your friends. I’ll then roll a D100 twice to determine who dies from Coronavirus.
Matt Swain wrote: Dukeofstuff, first off you never met my grandfather and you don't know what he would have pointed out.
Secondly, herd immunity as far as I know never effecitvely eradicated a single disease. It may have reduced their death tolls but it took vaccinations to effectively make them non issues to the vast majority of the human race.
So I'm not waiting. I don't care if we have to "gut the military" (Which is what some people call no increasing military spending every year, let alone reducing it in any way) to finance covid vaccine research, we go with vaccine research.
I believe we should start transferring money from the military finding to covid vaccine research, and keep it up till we get it. Manhattan project levels of funding and research till we get the vaccine.
Respectfully, if you introduce a personal anecdote into a debate, you can't then take it personally if someone uses it in their counterpoint.
IF. you seem very sure that there's a vaccine out there just waiting to be found, so what's your plan when none appears? We just throw money at scientists ad infinitum?
MDG, you must have seen the news though... routine operations and procedures are being lost right now. Because of the lockdown, or more (in my opinion) the fear culture thats been promoted. That's despite the health service not coming anywhere near being overwhelmed as predicted. There are many, many experts warning of the untold deaths just waiting for their turn for untreated or undiagnosed cancers, heart disease etc etc.
If I were a gambling man I wouldn't bank on a vaccine.
Are they life saving operations? Or life improving?
Because let’s be absolutely honest. Life with a dodgy hip or other joint sucks - but isn’t going to kill you of itself, is it? Given they’re routine (non- emergency), I suspect they’re by definition not life saving.
And hospitals aren’t being overwhelmed precisely because of lockdown. It’s reducing infection rates. I remain uninterested in falling out with you, but still baffled at your odd dissonance here?
That's what vaccinations are for, not to render every single person immune to the disease, but to make enough immune as to limit the effective spread of a disease through a population.
It's well known and understood science at this point.
Anyone advocating that people should live or die as they may is, from a purely logical point of view, correct. That is the fastest way to achieve herd immunity in the absence of an effective vaccine.
What that argument fails to account for, of course, is the emotional impact on society those deaths will have, and all the consequential deaths from overwhelmed health services, which would be the outcome no matter the quality or preparedness of any given institution.
And what virus we have got herd immunity without vaccines? None really. MAYBE black death if that wasn't simply it dying because it was too killy...
All herd immunities humans have got are because of vaccines.
As it is there isn't even any proof yet there is natural immunity of note to corona virus. Previous corona viruses(you are aware this isn't first corona virus ever right?) don't leave people with long term immunity. Reinfection has been varying from 4 weeks to couple months. So your herd immunity is at best few months if you even get sufficiently infected in that time before merry go around starts again.
Top of that the rate people are getting the resistance indicators is painfully slow. In spain(one of the worst hit countries in EU) only few % could be considered immune. At this rate by the time sufficient is the early ones have most likely lost their immunity as usual with corona so back to square one...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There will be a vaccine, in due course. Because this is a Flu variant. We’re even in the (accelerated) human testing stage.
Again, it's not a flu. The flu is a Orthomyxovirus. COVID 19 is a coronavirus. There are several coronaviruses with vaccines (albeit in animals, because no other coronavirus has actually become a real problem and thus funding dries up before a vaccine is fully developed), so we can still expect to see a vaccine at some point, but coronavirus and flu viruses are not the same thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Herd immunity without a vaccine involves 60% or more of the population catching the disease.
If you assume a fatality rate of 1%, that means at least 400,000 dead in the UK population. That is more than we lost in WW2.
And it would be concentrated into a few months, rather than 5 years, if we are to avoid a long lockdown.
And likely in few months it would start again unless this new corona isn't different to previous ones and actually give permanent immunity. Rather dangerous assumption to assume it differs in that without evidence in contrary...
Well for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, even pre/post natal care definitely have life saving aspects.
I dont believe that lockdown is the reason for that. unfortunately, because its already been implemented, those who are sceptical are already standing on a weaker base to argue from, and those who advocate for lockdown have an easy wall to stand behind.
post hoc ergo propter hoc. (only just realised that I've been saying this wrong for years )
I'm dissonant because I dont believe this is as bad as the media makes out. I dont believe that a disease with a ~<1% IFR is worth effectively shutting down the entire country (and planet) for, especially considering the potential economic fallout. I think people will have a shock if those things come to pass. I feel that many of them just think they will get the government money, and then the virus will disappear and everything will return to normal(economy wise)
I know you think the economy will bounce back quickly, and I share that hope, but I think the longer this goes on, the less likely that looks.
I'm not saying precautions shouldn't have been in place, but I think they should have been targeted, based on the best evidence (read:not a blanket lockdown strategy based on shonky modelling, which has had so many holes poked through you could use it so sieve flour)
I also dont think that the fear promoted by the media and government is enough to implement the blanket restrictions of rights and freedoms with no parliamentary scrutiny, but I think my views on that are well documented so I wont say more on that.
I honestly think future generations will look back on this period with amazement.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm dissonant because I dont believe this is as bad as the media makes out. I dont believe that a disease with a ~<1% IFR is worth effectively shutting down the entire country (and planet) for, especially considering the potential economic fallout.
The 1% is because the other 99% can get the care they need to recover.
If the beds weren't there, the 1% would be far higher. Or, if not fatal, the after-effects would be much more serious.
The lockdown is there to let the 99% get better, properly. It is not to stop the 1% happening.
How many of the 1% dying of this are doing so outside the health care system? How many died at home, or in a care-home? Would the 1% be lower if everyone who caught it were in a hospital bed.
Queen Anne's revenge - I hope to feth that you are right. But I fear that that won't be the case.
But - we are already at more deaths than caused during the WW2 Blitz. I think we will look back with amazement, but not in the sense you mean. Instead, we will look at why the lockdown started when it did, later than it should have and allowed events such as Cheltenham gold cup to go ahead when they knew that it should not have. That we have been unable to implement effective tracking, tracing and isolation regimes during the lockdown period. Our media has frontpaged stories of the gov scientific advisor going to illicitly meet his mistress on the day that we passed 1000 deaths and became the most deadly country in Europe. Lockdown fatigue has set in, and backed up by confusing gov messages and again elements of the media that should be screaming blue bloody murder, but are not, there is every chance now we will hit a second wave in a few weeks time and many more thousands of unnecessary deaths.
I already know of people in my 'circle' who have lost loved ones. In both the case of myself and my partner, someone at our place of work has died (admittedly big companies, but they are names that we recognised). And others that have lost members of family. All someone's Gran, someone's partner, someone's friend. It's a very hard pill to swallow, knowing that in all likelihood they might still have been alive had they lived in another country, one where the government and society had managed to effectively mitigate the outbreak.
The beds are there. Were there even at the peak (which multiple reputable scientists would say came before lockdown was implemented) this is my point.
Saying 'lockdown has worked' is just an assertion. There is no solid empirical evidence to back this up. It just is.
Unherd even got a lockdown advocate on to put forward her case, and it basically surmounted to the circular argument of : lockdowns work because they work, occams razor says so.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The beds are there. Were there even at the peak (which multiple reputable scientists would say came before lockdown was implemented) this is my point.
Saying 'lockdown has worked' is just an assertion. There is no solid empirical evidence to back this up. It just is.
Unherd even got a lockdown advocate on to put forward her case, and it basically surmounted to the circular argument of : lockdowns work because they work, occams razor says so.
considering that people have multiple times told you that the beds alone are NOT the issue i am surprised that you still argue that way.
Also there is potential data in the case of sweden.
quote=Pacific 784835 10800944 b2849392f11c9a766efe17f0601e55af.jpg]Queen Anne's revenge - I hope to feth that you are right. But I fear that that won't be the case.
But - we are already at more deaths than caused during the WW2 Blitz. I think we will look back with amazement, but not in the sense you mean. Instead, we will look at why the lockdown started when it did, later than it should have and allowed events such as Cheltenham gold cup to go ahead when they knew that it should not have. That we have been unable to implement effective tracking, tracing and isolation regimes during the lockdown period. Our media has frontpaged stories of the gov scientific advisor going to illicitly meet his mistress on the day that we passed 1000 deaths and became the most deadly country in Europe. Lockdown fatigue has set in, and backed up by confusing gov messages and again elements of the media that should be screaming blue bloody murder, but are not, there is every chance now we will hit a second wave in a few weeks time and many more thousands of unnecessary deaths.
I already know of people in my 'circle' who have lost loved ones. In both the case of myself and my partner, someone at our place of work has died (admittedly big companies, but they are names that we recognised). And others that have lost members of family. All someone's Gran, someone's partner, someone's friend. It's a very hard pill to swallow, knowing that in all likelihood they might still have been alive had they lived in another country, one where the government and society had managed to effectively mitigate the outbreak.
My sympathies.
The death figures themselves are also not particularly useful without nuances applied to them though. They are the first thing announced by the media every day, but no one ever explains all the factors. Excess deaths have been mentioned here. (can't remember who posted them) but they are a more useful stat to analyse.
I think the virus spread has too many other influencing factors, that whether you lockdown or not, the effect of which is miniscule. You can see this in the rates across various nations, each with various degrees of lockdown, all with wildly different death rates, but all with the rates following the same sort of curve.
I concur that lockdown came too late, but I think that this is always the case. I don't believe the government did this intentionally or out of stupidity. They were following the limited advice they had. I feel that unless you are very quick on the uptake, as some se Asian countries were, or lucky, you're pretty much always going to be too late implementing lockdowns.
Personally I align with those in the scientific community who believe that the virus will take its curve, pretty much to a similar degree in most places regardless. Some even believe that it will basically peter out, becoming like sars 1 or mers. In the background but not really worried about. Which I am hopeful for.
After contracting Covid-19 in hospital, my dad has managed to to reach a negative test having experienced nothing worse than an elevated temperature. He came home yesterday.
He knows he was lucky: 70+, massive existing health issues and a lifetime of smoking. I suspect a Mr Burns situation with every health issue fighting off all the others...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The beds are there. Were there even at the peak (which multiple reputable scientists would say came before lockdown was implemented) this is my point.
Saying 'lockdown has worked' is just an assertion. There is no solid empirical evidence to back this up. It just is.
Unherd even got a lockdown advocate on to put forward her case, and it basically surmounted to the circular argument of : lockdowns work because they work, occams razor says so.
considering that people have multiple times told you that the beds alone are NOT the issue i am surprised that you still argue that way.
Also there is potential data in the case of sweden.
Sweden is following the exact same curve as every other country.
The very fact that Sweden is below many other countries in deaths and cases, without lockdown, shows that lockdown is not a particularly relevant factor. if it wasnt the case, then their rates should still be rising, higher than everyone else.
Patriarch wrote: After contracting Covid-19 in hospital, my dad has managed to to reach a negative test having experienced nothing worse than an elevated temperature. He came home yesterday.
He knows he was lucky: 70+, massive existing health issues and a lifetime of smoking. I suspect a Mr Burns situation with every health issue fighting off all the others...
Thats good news.
There have been things floating about lately about smokers being less susceptible somehow? something to do with the lung environment being less hospitable to the virus? doesnt seem to add up with the original theories about high number of smokers, and doesnt really make sense to me, but, who knows?
I've looked at the other countries. but death rate alone is not really an indictaor. the curve is following the same path.
to follow your logic though, add in Belgium. granted they are counting suspected (for some reason?) but still. I imagine if they weren't it would be following a similar curve.
The death figures themselves are also not particularly useful without nuances applied to them though. They are the first thing announced by the media every day, but no one ever explains all the factors. Excess deaths have been mentioned here. (can't remember who posted them) but they are a more useful stat to analyse.
Me. And they are. You've been ignoring them to push your 'not as dangerous as people think' line, though. Highest weekly deaths since recording began. Close to doubling the five-year average death rate at one point. Riding above 50% over it for a prolonged period. All whilst flu/other respiratory illness/heart disease etc deaths track the average.
Personally I align with those in the scientific community who believe that the virus will take its curve, pretty much to a similar degree in most places regardless. Some even believe that it will basically peter out, becoming like sars 1 or mers. In the background but not really worried about. Which I am hopeful for.
On the basis of your posts in this thread, you're aligning with that extreme minority of the scientific community because of your a priori assumptions/hopes.
You've been consistently scathing about the lack of robust evidence for lockdown success. This is fair and reasonable. The data is problematic and there is a lot of necessarily interpretation. However, you never acknowledge its being vastly more prevalent than evidence for lockdowns irrelevance, or even for its effectiveness being overstated, which essentially does not exist beyond 'not everyone in Sweden is dead'. The only data* you've ever managed to find are a couple videos you've pulled from a channel dedicated to minimalising coronavirus and a single study which has no stated methodology or criteria and specifically excludes all data concerning two diseases originating in Asia published in a language other than English, all of which you present without critique (or, usually, comment). You simply hold evidence supporting your position to one set of standards (basically, someone has said it) and evidence against your position to a different set (comprehensive proof).
Your position might be right, but you don't hold that position based on a reasoned assessment of the evidence.
The death figures themselves are also not particularly useful without nuances applied to them though. They are the first thing announced by the media every day, but no one ever explains all the factors. Excess deaths have been mentioned here. (can't remember who posted them) but they are a more useful stat to analyse.
Me. And they are. You've been ignoring them to push your 'not as dangerous as people think' line, though. Highest weekly deaths since recording began. Close to doubling the five-year average death rate at one point. Riding above 50% over it for a prolonged period. All whilst flu/other respiratory illness/heart disease etc deaths track the average.
Personally I align with those in the scientific community who believe that the virus will take its curve, pretty much to a similar degree in most places regardless. Some even believe that it will basically peter out, becoming like sars 1 or mers. In the background but not really worried about. Which I am hopeful for.
On the basis of your posts in this thread, you're aligning with that extreme minority of the scientific community because of your a priori assumptions/hopes.
You've been consistently scathing about the lack of robust evidence for lockdown success, yet never acknowledge its being vastly more prevalent than evidence for its irrelevance, which essentially does not exist beyond 'not everyone in Sweden is dead'. The only data you've ever managed to find are a couple videos you've pulled from a channel dedicated to minimalising coronavirus and a single study which has no stated methodology or criteria and specifically excludes all data concerning two diseases originating in Asia published in a language other than English.
Your position might be right, but you don't hold that position based on a reasoned assessment of the evidence.
And you constantly attack me, assume my opinions and hopes, and then use that to 'deduce' why I reach the conclusions I do whilst trying to put up an appearance of intellectual superiority. You're only doing the exact same thing as I but on the other side of the coin.
being in a minority does not make a case wrong. Argumentum ad populum.
You question my use of unherd (I assume thats the one you're talking about) yet they have had both iain ferguson, and the aforementioned lockdown advocate on, and treated them to the same questions, put forward in the same civil manner. its the most balanced journalism you can find on the issue. certainly more so than the BBC or other mainstream media, who never mention anything of any dissenting scientific opinion on the matter.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I've looked at the other countries. but death rate alone is not really an indictaor. the curve is following the same path.
to follow your logic though, add in Belgium. granted they are counting suspected (for some reason?) but still. I imagine if they weren't it would be following a similar curve.
So you give me data, don't use your own data even correctly and contextualised.
And then complain about the data.
Just to write out what you logically just did:
QAR: Here is data s. s shows that country S does not suffer as much, therefore L doesn't work.
B: Looks at provided data s, expands the datapoints in regards to similar and suggested countries according to data Provided by QAR, s shows excactly that L seems to work.
QAR: Data s is not valid.
So in other words your first premise you yourself admit is not correct.
A can not be A and not A at the same time, so what is it?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I've looked at the other countries. but death rate alone is not really an indictaor. the curve is following the same path.
to follow your logic though, add in Belgium. granted they are counting suspected (for some reason?) but still. I imagine if they weren't it would be following a similar curve.
So you give me data, don't use your own data even correctly and contextualised.
And then complain about the data.
Just to write out what you logically just did:
QAR: Here is data s. s shows that country S does not suffer as much, therefore L doesn't work.
B: Looks at provided data s, expands the datapoints in regards to similar and suggested countries according to data Provided by QAR, s shows excactly that L seems to work.
QAR: Data s is not valid.
So in other words your first premise you yourself admit is not correct.
A can not be A and not A at the same so what is it.
My point was that the curve was the same regardless, therefore lockdown is not the key factor. the fact that other countries with lockdown have smaller death rates is irrelevant here. the pattern is the same. I never said you data wasnt valid, but it doesnt prove your counterpoint either, as shown by the additional data from belgium.
There have been things floating about lately about smokers being less susceptible somehow? something to do with the lung environment being less hospitable to the virus? doesnt seem to add up with the original theories about high number of smokers, and doesnt really make sense to me, but, who knows?
Thank you!
I thought the earlier high death rates in places like China and Italy had been partially ascribed to more smoking (and possibly a more "tactile" social culture in southern Europe) but that might have been early guesswork. Looks like the UK has overtaken Italy and everywhere else in Europe, so not the "touchy feely" thing.
There have been things floating about lately about smokers being less susceptible somehow? something to do with the lung environment being less hospitable to the virus? doesnt seem to add up with the original theories about high number of smokers, and doesnt really make sense to me, but, who knows?
Thank you!
I thought the earlier high death rates in places like China and Italy had been partially ascribed to more smoking (and possibly a more "tactile" social culture in southern Europe) but that might have been early guesswork. Looks like the UK has overtaken Italy and everywhere else in Europe, so not the "touchy feely" thing.
No your point was against my argument : Look here Sweden doesn't suffer as much. With provided data, COMPLETLY FAILING to propperly contextualise your arguement with the dataset you YOURSELF provided and now you complain about said dataset.
Like i said A can not be A and B at the same time.
What is it?
What? my point was that the curve was the same regardless, therefore lockdown is not the key factor. the fact that other countries with lockdown have smaller death rates is irrelevant here. the pattern is the same. I never said you data wasnt valid, but it doesnt prove your counterpoint either, as shown by the additional data from belgium.
Belgium can be discounted because Belgium is culturally diffrent, same with switzerland really, whilest the closes related countries for an easy comparison would be denmark and norway.
The death figures themselves are also not particularly useful without nuances applied to them though. They are the first thing announced by the media every day, but no one ever explains all the factors. Excess deaths have been mentioned here. (can't remember who posted them) but they are a more useful stat to analyse.
Me. And they are. You've been ignoring them to push your 'not as dangerous as people think' line, though. Highest weekly deaths since recording began. Close to doubling the five-year average death rate at one point. Riding above 50% over it for a prolonged period. All whilst flu/other respiratory illness/heart disease etc deaths track the average.
Personally I align with those in the scientific community who believe that the virus will take its curve, pretty much to a similar degree in most places regardless. Some even believe that it will basically peter out, becoming like sars 1 or mers. In the background but not really worried about. Which I am hopeful for.
On the basis of your posts in this thread, you're aligning with that extreme minority of the scientific community because of your a priori assumptions/hopes.
You've been consistently scathing about the lack of robust evidence for lockdown success, yet never acknowledge its being vastly more prevalent than evidence for its irrelevance, which essentially does not exist beyond 'not everyone in Sweden is dead'. The only data you've ever managed to find are a couple videos you've pulled from a channel dedicated to minimalising coronavirus and a single study which has no stated methodology or criteria and specifically excludes all data concerning two diseases originating in Asia published in a language other than English.
Your position might be right, but you don't hold that position based on a reasoned assessment of the evidence.
And you constantly attack me, assume my opinions and hopes
I address poor analysis consistently, I hope. You are particularly consistent in restarting the same arguments without ever addressing their rebuttals so you catch note than most I guess.
I don't assume anything. You've been explicit in your positions: the danger is not significant enough to warrant a lockdown. The threat level is very low. Persons freedoms are more important than excessive efforts to protect some parts of the populace.
and then use that to 'deduce' why I reach the conclusions I do whilst trying to put up an appearance of intellectual superiority.
Yes, I use the things you say to deduce why you say them. It's not about intellectual superiority, but it is about more nuanced analysis of data as it presents itself.
You're only doing the exact same thing but on the other side of the coin.
Presenting evidence without critique to support my assumptions? This is nonsense. Heck, I'm one of like three people in this thread that's explicitly changed their mind as the crisis has unfolded!
being a minority, does not make a case wrong.
Read the whole post? You've quoted where I state this is the case!
You're trying, and somewhat succeeding in tying me in knots by trying to make the death rate the main consideration here. that was not my point. the point was the curve, and its path. how high the curve is on the death rate is irrelevant, as I said. regardless of lockdown or no, the curve is now (in most places) plateauing, or starting to angle downwards
So, I guess you could go so far as to extrapolate the fact that lockdowns may prevent higher levels of deaths, but its only a may, as the myriad other factors, those that cant be shown on the graphs, could be a larger contributing factor (in my opinion)
queen_annes_revenge wrote: You're trying, and somewhat succeeding in tying me in knots by trying to make the death rate the main consideration here. that was not my point. the point was the curve, and its path. how high the curve is on the death rate is irrelevant, as I said. regardless of lockdown or no, the curve is now (in most places) plateauing, or starting to angle downwards
So, I guess you could go so far as to extrapolate the fact that lockdowns may prevent higher levels of deaths, but its only a may, as the myriad other factors, those that cant be shown on the graphs, could be a larger contributing factor (in my opinion)
The death figures themselves are also not particularly useful without nuances applied to them though. They are the first thing announced by the media every day, but no one ever explains all the factors. Excess deaths have been mentioned here. (can't remember who posted them) but they are a more useful stat to analyse.
Me. And they are. You've been ignoring them to push your 'not as dangerous as people think' line, though. Highest weekly deaths since recording began. Close to doubling the five-year average death rate at one point. Riding above 50% over it for a prolonged period. All whilst flu/other respiratory illness/heart disease etc deaths track the average.
Personally I align with those in the scientific community who believe that the virus will take its curve, pretty much to a similar degree in most places regardless. Some even believe that it will basically peter out, becoming like sars 1 or mers. In the background but not really worried about. Which I am hopeful for.
On the basis of your posts in this thread, you're aligning with that extreme minority of the scientific community because of your a priori assumptions/hopes.
You've been consistently scathing about the lack of robust evidence for lockdown success, yet never acknowledge its being vastly more prevalent than evidence for its irrelevance, which essentially does not exist beyond 'not everyone in Sweden is dead'. The only data you've ever managed to find are a couple videos you've pulled from a channel dedicated to minimalising coronavirus and a single study which has no stated methodology or criteria and specifically excludes all data concerning two diseases originating in Asia published in a language other than English.
Your position might be right, but you don't hold that position based on a reasoned assessment of the evidence.
And you constantly attack me, assume my opinions and hopes
I address poor analysis consistently, I hope. You are particularly consistent in restarting the same arguments without ever addressing their rebuttals so you catch note than most I guess.
I don't assume anything. You've been explicit in your positions: the danger is not significant enough to warrant a lockdown. The threat level is very low. Persons freedoms are more important than excessive efforts to protect some parts of the populace.
and then use that to 'deduce' why I reach the conclusions I do whilst trying to put up an appearance of intellectual superiority.
Yes, I use the things you say to deduce why you say them. It's not about intellectual superiority, but it is about more nuanced analysis of data as it presents itself.
You're only doing the exact same thing but on the other side of the coin.
Presenting evidence without critique to support my assumptions? This is nonsense. Heck, I'm one of like three people in this thread that's explicitly changed their mind as the crisis has unfolded!
being a minority, does not make a case wrong.
Read the whole post? You've quoted where I state this is the case!
I'm fairly certain I do address rebuttals. not changing my mind because of them is a different matter.
I changed my mind throughout this crisis. I went from believing the media view about staying away from people, and supporting a short lockdown (just not as draconian as it was) to believing that we've over reacted even more than I initially thought. this is based on my daily analysis of events, and consuming as much media as I can on the issue.
Also, as a personal anecdote, I've been working throughout this whole thing, in an environment with no social distancing, no PPE, and with a workforce that is free to return to all areas of the country at weekends or on leave to families and partners. We've had 3 confirmed cases, right at the start, guys who came back from Austria with symptoms, and thats it.
The threat level is low. too low to blanket restrict freedoms the way they are, and the case for that is dropping daily. I stand by my earlier point that more and more people will begin to ignore the 'Rules' through fatigue, or just generally not being able to handle it anymore.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm dissonant because I dont believe this is as bad as the media makes out. I dont believe that a disease with a ~<1% IFR is worth effectively shutting down the entire country (and planet) for, especially considering the potential economic fallout.
The 1% is because the other 99% can get the care they need to recover.
If the beds weren't there, the 1% would be far higher. Or, if not fatal, the after-effects would be much more serious.
The lockdown is there to let the 99% get better, properly. It is not to stop the 1% happening.
How many of the 1% dying of this are doing so outside the health care system? How many died at home, or in a care-home? Would the 1% be lower if everyone who caught it were in a hospital bed.
It's always the same. If nothing is done people complain nothing is done when gak hits the fan. If it's done people are "it's overreaction". Same thing with standards. Few appreciate benefits of them because they are invisible except for inconveniences when they are there because they prevent the worse scenarios. Don't have those or they are ignored and people then complain why nothing is done.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The threat level is low. too low to blanket restrict freedoms the way they are, and the case for that is dropping daily..
As planned, as part of the lockdown? They expected, and saw, the number of cases spike after VE day celebrations got boozy.
I stand by my earlier point that more and more people will begin to ignore the 'Rules' through fatigue, or just generally not being able to handle it anymore.
These people are the only way that the number of cases can go up. If infected people have contact with uninfected people, new cases happen. There is no other way for it to happen.
If people trickle out on their own, they are the reason the lockdown gets extended. If everyone stayed inside, the cases drop, and the restrictions get lifted. These people are why we are where we are now.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The beds are there. Were there even at the peak (which multiple reputable scientists would say came before lockdown was implemented) this is my point.
Oh gee what a surprise. Lockdown is done TO REDUCE INFECTION RATE and you are claiming it was not needed WHEN THE LOCKDOWNS ARE DOING WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO!?!
The whole point of lockdowns was to ensure beds don't run. They didn't run BECAUSE LOCKDOWN DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
I hope you are just trolling and pretending to not see that.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm dissonant because I dont believe this is as bad as the media makes out. I dont believe that a disease with a ~<1% IFR is worth effectively shutting down the entire country (and planet) for, especially considering the potential economic fallout.
The 1% is because the other 99% can get the care they need to recover.
If the beds weren't there, the 1% would be far higher. Or, if not fatal, the after-effects would be much more serious.
The lockdown is there to let the 99% get better, properly. It is not to stop the 1% happening.
How many of the 1% dying of this are doing so outside the health care system? How many died at home, or in a care-home? Would the 1% be lower if everyone who caught it were in a hospital bed.
It's always the same. If nothing is done people complain nothing is done when gak hits the fan. If it's done people are "it's overreaction". Same thing with standards. Few appreciate benefits of them because they are invisible except for inconveniences when they are there because they prevent the worse scenarios. Don't have those or they are ignored and people then complain why nothing is done.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The threat level is low. too low to blanket restrict freedoms the way they are, and the case for that is dropping daily..
As planned, as part of the lockdown? They expected, and saw, the number of cases spike after VE day celebrations got boozy.
I stand by my earlier point that more and more people will begin to ignore the 'Rules' through fatigue, or just generally not being able to handle it anymore.
These people are the only way that the number of cases can go up. If infected people have contact with uninfected people, new cases happen. There is no other way for it to happen.
If people trickle out on their own, they are the reason the lockdown gets extended. If everyone stayed inside, the cases drop, and the restrictions get lifted. These people are why we are where we are now.
The problem is now that the UK hasn't yet implemented an effective tracking and isolation process, so in effect the lockdown time (and from which people are starting to feel fatigue - if the bustling masses outside my local B&Q over the weekend were any indication) has been been wasted. Cases have dropped significantly following the lockdown (believe Sunday was first day <200 deaths) but there is still a high rate of infection and the virus has not gone anywhere. Following the next bank holiday on Monday, I would be very surprised if we are not on a significant upward curve again in early June.
From the information I have read about schools being on lockdown, apparently closing schools is most effective before the exponential growth level gets too high. So arguably the moment for that to be in effect has long since passed. That being said, other countries in a better position than the UK have seen their R-rate go close to 1 again following re-opening, even with ridiculous measures in place (we have all seen the pictures of children stood in drawn chalk squares in playgrounds). I can completely understand the economic and social argument for getting kids back in school - a few people I know have been driven to the point of destruction by trying to work and child care. But should schools be re-opened, and the lives of teachers, school workers and everyone else the children come into contact with, spreading the virus from family to family, be put at risk? Absolutely not.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The beds are there. Were there even at the peak (which multiple reputable scientists would say came before lockdown was implemented) this is my point.
Oh gee what a surprise. Lockdown is done TO REDUCE INFECTION RATE and you are claiming it was not needed WHEN THE LOCKDOWNS ARE DOING WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO!?!
The whole point of lockdowns was to ensure beds don't run. They didn't run BECAUSE LOCKDOWN DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
I hope you are just trolling and pretending to not see that.
I'll keep dragging out this dead horse if you want to keep flogging it.
Theres no way you can say with any certainty that lockdowns are the cause. this has been my point for the whole of the entire last page.
'Lockdowns work because they work' or 'lockdowns work because we want them to work' is about as good as it gets.
I'm not even going to entertain your graph. it is completely meaningless other than as an adendum to your moot assertion above.
If lockdowns didn't cause the reduction in cases then what did? What element in life changed to suddenly reduce the rampant spreading of the disease?
Furthermore if lockdowns do not cause reduction in case spread why is it that when lockdowns end and things start to drift back to normal there's an uptake in cases?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The beds are there. Were there even at the peak (which multiple reputable scientists would say came before lockdown was implemented) this is my point.
Oh gee what a surprise. Lockdown is done TO REDUCE INFECTION RATE and you are claiming it was not needed WHEN THE LOCKDOWNS ARE DOING WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO!?!
The whole point of lockdowns was to ensure beds don't run. They didn't run BECAUSE LOCKDOWN DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
I hope you are just trolling and pretending to not see that.
I'll keep dragging out this dead horse if you want to keep flogging it.
Theres no way you can say with any certainty that lockdowns are the cause. this has been my point for the whole of the entire last page.
'Lockdowns work because they work' or 'lockdowns work because we want them to work' is about as good as it gets.
I'm not even going to entertain your graph. it is completely meaningless other than as an adendum to your moot assertion above.
Which is probably why you failed to respond to my last point yet.
Again
queen_annes_revenge wrote: You're trying, and somewhat succeeding in tying me in knots by trying to make the death rate the main consideration here. that was not my point. the point was the curve, and its path. how high the curve is on the death rate is irrelevant, as I said. regardless of lockdown or no, the curve is now (in most places) plateauing, or starting to angle downwards
So, I guess you could go so far as to extrapolate the fact that lockdowns may prevent higher levels of deaths, but its only a may, as the myriad other factors, those that cant be shown on the graphs, could be a larger contributing factor (in my opinion)
And you ignored mine. Cases, deaths, high or low. Doesn't matter. The curve is the same. You can see it on the second graph. To put it simply the lines all go in the same direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: If lockdowns didn't cause the reduction in cases then what did? What element in life changed to suddenly reduce the rampant spreading of the disease?
Furthermore if lockdowns do not cause reduction in case spread why is it that when lockdowns end and things start to drift back to normal there's an uptake in cases?
The virus taking its natural course. Regardless.
You all seem to be missing the fact that I'm not saying lockdowns don't have any affect, I'm saying that any effect they do have is minimal, and not the main factor in the virus pattern
queen_annes_revenge wrote: And you ignored mine. Cases, deaths, high or low. Doesn't matter. The curve is the same. You can see it on the second graph. To put it simply the lines all go in the same direction.
Are you serious right now? You are saying that all these curves are the same:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: The beds are there. Were there even at the peak (which multiple reputable scientists would say came before lockdown was implemented) this is my point.
Saying 'lockdown has worked' is just an assertion. There is no solid empirical evidence to back this up. It just is.
Unherd even got a lockdown advocate on to put forward her case, and it basically surmounted to the circular argument of : lockdowns work because they work, occams razor says so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: And you ignored mine. Cases, deaths, high or low. Doesn't matter. The curve is the same. You can see it on the second graph. To put it simply the lines all go in the same direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: If lockdowns didn't cause the reduction in cases then what did? What element in life changed to suddenly reduce the rampant spreading of the disease?
Furthermore if lockdowns do not cause reduction in case spread why is it that when lockdowns end and things start to drift back to normal there's an uptake in cases?
The virus taking its natural course. Regardless.
You all seem to be missing the fact that I'm not saying lockdowns don't have any affect, I'm saying that any effect they do have is minimal, and not the main factor in the virus pattern
The goalpost has just evolved into an ent and decided to take a trip to the center of the universe.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: And you ignored mine. Cases, deaths, high or low. Doesn't matter. The curve is the same. You can see it on the second graph. To put it simply the lines all go in the same direction.
Are you serious right now? You are saying that all these curves are the same:
The goalpost has just evolved into an ent and decided to take a trip to the center of the universe.
OK.
Being wilfully ignorant of my posts is fine. All my posts have said words to the effect of: lockdowns are not the main factor. Not that they have no effect.
The goalpost has just evolved into an ent and decided to take a trip to the center of the universe.
OK.
Being wilfully ignorant of my posts is fine. All my posts have said words to the effect of: lockdowns are not the main factor. Not that they have no effect.
I literally went a page back and quoted and underlined your statement, quoted and underlined the statement on the next page, after disproving your position of lack of verifyable empirical evidecne with your own dataset. and you call me ignorant of your position?
Even though i was one of the few who even entertained your point and came out atleast partially in support of your views over the course of this thread especially in regards to emergency powers, etc.
The goalpost has just evolved into an ent and decided to take a trip to the center of the universe.
OK.
Being wilfully ignorant of my posts is fine. All my posts have said words to the effect of: lockdowns are not the main factor. Not that they have no effect.
I literally went a page back and quoted and underlined your statement, quoted and underlined the statement on the next page, after disproving your position of lack of verifyable empirical evidecne with your own dataset. and you call me ignorant of your position?
Even though i was one of the few who even entertained your point and came out atleast partially in support of your views over the course of this thread especially in regards to emergency powers, etc.
You underlined my statement saying that stating lockdowns have worked is un provable. That is not the same as saying they have no effect. You are literally twisting my words to suit your counterpoint. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but accusing me of moving goalposts while intentionally or not, misreading my points is not exactly conductive to any debate.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They're all following the same trajectory. It's really not that hard to understand.
Apparently it is hard to understand, because you clearly don't. Those graphs do not show the same "trajectory" at all. As ATCM says, you need to learn some calculus. The evidence we have is that lockdowns are effective at controlling the spread of the virus and are in fact one of the main weapons we have in the fight against the virus. Those facts being inconvenient to the conclusion you wish to draw doesn't change them.
I havent blocked you. I just didnt reply to your last post because it was just an assertion that people leaving their homes will cause the lockdown to be extended, and are at fault for spreading this virus.
Edit. I didnt see the other post after. apologies.
Few years back, my Dad had a minor heart attack. Few stents and a change of lifestyle later and he’s fine and dandy.
Because there was space in a hospital for him.
My Mum finally lost her cancer battle last year. She’d been fighting it through various treatments for around a decade. Chemo, tupenny-all-out etc.
Because the health service had the time and resources.
When I was 16 and just starting to sit my GCSEs? Yeah my appendix ruptured. Emergency operation later, and here I am.
Because the health service had the time and resources.
Remember, we’re truly spoiled in the modern day. Broken limbs are rarely fatal. Even coronavirus is relatively rarely fatal. Because, for now, we have the resources to tackle it. Ventilators etc.
But just because you survive it, doesn’t mean you survive it unscathed. Facebook friend has had the virus. He’s not dead - but his lungs are permanently damaged.
Routine but life saving treatments could be lost if this spirals out of control. That’s an ever higher death toll, linked to, but not directly caused by coronavirus.
The more cases in a given hospital, the higher the risk to hospital staff. What happens if Doctors and Nurses start coming down with it? Ever greater strain. The greater the strain, the greater the death toll.
I lost my Mum last year, because sadly her cancer became incurable. I am not prepared to lose anyone else, not from something actually avoidable.
By all means be sceptical. Definitely question advice. But for now? As long as you’re following it? We’re golden. But those Words Not Allowed on Dakka flouting it? The idiots demanding their barber go back to work etc? Those claiming this is all just a conspiracy by Big Pharma whilst entirely coincidentally flogging their own ‘miracle cures’ (which certainly isn’t bleach, despite it smelling like bleach and actually being bleach it’s definitely not actually bleach)? The morons burning down 5G towers? No. No no no.
Because I’ve been round the block often enough and seen enough of the world’s dark sense of humour to know, inexplicably, they all too rarely carry the can for the harm they cause others.
To get melodramatic? Give me a list of 100 people you know. This list must include your nuclear family and extended family, and your friends. I’ll then roll a D100 twice to determine who dies from Coronavirus.
When you put it like that it sends chills down your spine.
To try and stay positive, I’ve had a couple of moral boosts today. First, the Subway has opened up again. No meatball marinaras in stock, but that Italian BMT I had felt like the best sandwich ever made.
I also encountered my old history teacher at the garage, who I was pleased to see was doing just fine at this time and who was also happy to hear about my degree. Social distance maintained at all times of course.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They're all following the same trajectory. It's really not that hard to understand.
Apparently it is hard to understand, because you clearly don't. Those graphs do not show the same "trajectory" at all. As ATCM says, you need to learn some calculus. The evidence we have is that lockdowns are effective at controlling the spread of the virus and are in fact one of the main weapons we have in the fight against the virus. Those facts being inconvenient to the conclusion you wish to draw doesn't change them.
Still waiting.
If youre going to accuse someone of not understanding something, the courteous thing is to show them why they are misunderstanding, instead of just insinuating stupidity.
'You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.' - Bulverism.
Look at the scaling, Compare the picture from ATCM the left branch and then at the one from Skinnereal.
Simply put, logarithmic scales are usefull for longterm trends, economically speaking, and linear are for short term. (this is just for economical and longterm investment strategies usefull )
Meaning that sweden beeing just slightly above the comparable nations means a bigger difference then you'd assume at a first glance.
Basically the logarithmic scale allows for a way of displaying numerical data over a very wide range of values in a compact way with the sideeffect that huge differences look small.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They're all following the same trajectory. It's really not that hard to understand.
Apparently it is hard to understand, because you clearly don't. Those graphs do not show the same "trajectory" at all. As ATCM says, you need to learn some calculus. The evidence we have is that lockdowns are effective at controlling the spread of the virus and are in fact one of the main weapons we have in the fight against the virus. Those facts being inconvenient to the conclusion you wish to draw doesn't change them.
Still waiting.
If youre going to accuse someone of not understanding something, the courteous thing is to show them why they are misunderstanding, instead of just insinuating stupidity.
'You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.' - Bulverism.
What a pretentious load of crap. Half of this thread is chock full of people explaining why you're wrong and here you are belting the same nonsense a hundred pages later. Why should they bother if you're clearly not interested in listening?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They're all following the same trajectory. It's really not that hard to understand.
Apparently it is hard to understand, because you clearly don't. Those graphs do not show the same "trajectory" at all. As ATCM says, you need to learn some calculus. The evidence we have is that lockdowns are effective at controlling the spread of the virus and are in fact one of the main weapons we have in the fight against the virus. Those facts being inconvenient to the conclusion you wish to draw doesn't change them.
Still waiting.
If youre going to accuse someone of not understanding something, the courteous thing is to show them why they are misunderstanding, instead of just insinuating stupidity.
'You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.' - Bulverism.
What a pretentious load of crap. Half of this thread is chock full of people explaining why you're wrong and here you are belting the same nonsense a hundred pages later. Why should they bother if you're clearly not interested in listening?
Its called debate. if no one presented a dissenting opinion then we'd all just be sheep wouldnt we. but sorry sir. I'll be quiet now..
have a word.
No one here knows the objective fact of any matter discussed in this thread. because the world doesnt know. we're still in the middle of it. thats why we discuss things.
Skinnereal wrote: Change it to linear scale, and the graphs are obviously very different...
You're gonna need to host that image somewhere else (imgur for example) as dakka doesn't let you host non-wargaming content.
But yes, it does demonstrate perfectly that QAR doesn't understand calculus and how logarithmic scales work.
So explain it then Einstein, instead of just engaging in outright ad hominem.
Look at the y-axis scale. On the logarithmic scale each increment is 10 times larger than the previous (100 cases, 1000 cases, 10k cases, 100k cases etc.), so this is a logarithmic plot in base 10.
So although the shape looks the same and they seem to be quite close together, that is not the case.
This is clearly shown when you switch to linear scale in which you can see that the rate of increase of cases in Sweden is still trending upwards at pretty much the same rate, whereas the others are slowing (and Norway seems to have plateaued for the moment).
Not Online!!! wrote: Look at the scaling, Compare the picture from ATCM the left branch and then at the one from Skinnereal.
Simply put, logarithmic scales are usefull for longterm trends, economically speaking, and linear are for short term. (this is just for economical and longterm investment strategies usefull )
Meaning that sweden beeing just slightly above the comparable nations means a bigger difference then you'd assume at a first glance.
Basically the logarithmic scale allows for a way of displaying numerical data over a very wide range of values in a compact way with the sideeffect that huge differences look small.
but changing it to linear, on the second graph on this page shows most countries levelling off to a similar degree, barring a couple of outliers. (Brazil, US)
If those lines are still rising, why are the death rates dropping?
Skinnereal wrote: Change it to linear scale, and the graphs are obviously very different...
You're gonna need to host that image somewhere else (imgur for example) as dakka doesn't let you host non-wargaming content.
But yes, it does demonstrate perfectly that QAR doesn't understand calculus and how logarithmic scales work.
So explain it then Einstein, instead of just engaging in outright ad hominem.
Look at the y-axis scale. On the logarithmic scale each increment is 10 times larger than the previous (100 cases, 1000 cases, 10k cases, 100k cases etc.), so this is a logarithmic plot in base 10.
So although the shape looks the same and they seem to be quite close together, that is not the case.
This is clearly shown when you switch to linear scale in which you can see that the rate of increase of cases in Sweden is still trending upwards at pretty much the same rate, whereas the others are slowing (and Norway seems to have plateaued for the moment).
Thank you. that was useful. I did not realise that you could change the graphs.
Ok, I can see the difference putting them all in on that scale. still though, you can put other countries in with lockdowns and they are higher still, I'd imagine being caused by other factors, which is what I was getting at originally.
If those lines are still rising, why are the death rates dropping?
politics.a few pages back there was an exemple of an intervention of politicians against medical expertise.
Russia is another exemple.
And if i may wager a bet, china fudges the numbers aswell.
Same with brazil which is at a point were cartells enforce meassures over the state and had a whole political issue going on between bolsonaro and his medical minister.
Western nations absolutely cook the numbers. President "Testing makes our numbers look bad" in the US is a prime example. If the US numbers are tending up, you can bet it's actually way worse. Same with deaths. You'll have governors in states or legislatures not test those who died so they don't have to report them as Covid deaths.
Our beaches in New Jersey opened this past weekend, and they were packed, but still called "socially distanced". We'll see what the spike looks like in two weeks.
And yet even the UK numbers might be wrong. We are somewhere between 40K and 50K extra deaths ontop of where we would be on average at this time of year. Now if we also accept that the shutdown of industry and a lot of travel we are also seeing fewer deaths from accidental sources then those numbers could be higher (however they might be complicated by increases in issues with things like heart attacks and other treatments people might be not taking due to avoiding hospitals).
Suffice to say that the extra deaths are more likely to be corona linked. As a result those numbers for the UK could be far lower than they actually are right now.
It also took a long while for the UK to add carehomes to the list which seriously pushed the numbers up by a good 6K+ on the day it happened.
The numbers will go down so long as infections go down; as infections rise again we'll see deaths rise once more because more infected means more chance of vulnerable people being infected.
We will also see spikes when key groups get affected. For example many vulnerable and over 70s are isolating in the extreme right now. If those groups relax that attitude at the same time then there will be a further surge as they become more likely to be exposed.
The theory is you lock down and thus the infection burns out in certain areas because it can't jump to a new person to infect. You then track and trace the population at large to contain those areas that still have infection going on through people spreading it unaware or taking risks.
Without the latter stage the virus is free to remain in pockets where it goes undetected or in groups that take the risk. Meaning as lockdown relaxes those groups start to infect more and more people - who in turn move about and infect others. With a week long incubation it means it will likely take a few weeks to see the numbers start to climb up and up once more. At which point you have to impose lockdown and wait out another surge rising up and up (because, again, there's that week of incubation).
You don;t massage the numbers, you just put very strict "guidelines" on who is and who isn't tested so your overall numbers go down! I saw it happen right in my local hospital because their aren't enough tests, you ONLY get one IF you have hit two of three criteria:
1. Travel from a known hot spot (Whatever that means)
2. Been in contact with a known case (Which is hilarious considering our testing guidelines anyway)
3. Have all the symptoms and are going to hospital for them (Only 1 of 3 criteria!)
So, tons of people were not/never tested locally. Therefore, the numbers have now been fudged and used to justify Re-open. Easy!
On a different note. It is amazing to me how fast "getting the Virus" has turned into an issue of "personal responsibility". If you are high-risk, then you need to do the things to protect yourself. If you think you are low risk, then you don't have to do anything.
It follows a similar trajectory as recycling, global warming, inequality, healthcare costs, etc. Obviously, no one can take "Personal Responsibility" to fix most of these issues. It doesn't matter is I recycle if 95% of the waste comes from corporations. It doesn't matter if I social distance and wear a mask if no one else does.
It is trotted out as the only "logical" response time and time again. How does this playbook keep working!
UK numbers are anything between 35K (tested and confirmed) and 55k (deaths above normal for the time of year.)
The goverment is reporting the lower number. Is this what other countries reporting? I've not check against the graphs yet.
[Update:] Nope, they are confirmed deaths. The UK is slow to test, so the numbers here are higher than the graphs show.
If those lines are still rising, why are the death rates dropping?
politics.a few pages back there was an exemple of an intervention of politicians against medical expertise.
Russia is another exemple.
And if i may wager a bet, china fudges the numbers aswell.
Same with brazil which is at a point were cartells enforce meassures over the state and had a whole political issue going on between bolsonaro and his medical minister.
We even have gyms open now. The fact is we're a tourist state, and early on we stopped counting victims that didn't live here as ours- so this is an effort to keep our economy going, despite there being no indication that the situation is getting better.
QAR, we don't have empirical data on the Corona Virus outbreak- look to history. There are many studies of what worked with the Flu of 1918, and SARS a few years back. They lay out what measures should be taken when dealing with a pandemic to reduce casualties. The best intervention we've found is vaccination. When that's not available, limiting it's spread is- quarantining victims until the disease has run its course works wonders. The issue with Corona Virus is that many people will be asymptomatic carriers- because of this, we have to treat everyone as if they have it, and that's why there have been mass social isolation and lock downs, and it's working. The better, and quicker countries have done it, the weaker the virus outbreak in their countries. The only medically sound time to break out of the social isolation is once you have a track and trace program in place, and can run each flareup into the ground before it surges again.
So, in a way, you are right- social isolation , or the lockdown, is not the best response. It's somewhere around plan C. But right now no one can do plan A (vaccinate this thing into extinction) and most can't do Plan B (track and trace most cases as they appear). So what's left, to save the largest portion of the population, is Plan C. Problem is politically and economically, Plan C sucks. So what we're seeing in the USA and various other countries is a game of high stakes chicken. How little social isolation is necessary before our linear increase in cases becomes exponential and we overwhelm our medical systems? Some states and countries will do it well, and the number of cases though higher than it would have been with a held social isolation, will remain manageable. Their economies will be stronger, and the survivors will congratulate themselves on being smarter than the surrounding countries who went further into a recession or depression to fight Corona virus. Others, inevitably won't. And the massively increased death tolls will be a totally avoidable tragedy, because a group of people shared your views, that the lock downs are worthless.
The simple answer is that in science technically nothing is provable. Best it ever does is fail to disprove. Which is ecactly what happened here.
Experts analyzed the data, predicted a curve and said "this is what will happen if nothing is done".
Then they postulated (hypothesized, if you prefer) that measures would be implemented and calculated a new curve, then said "this is what will happen if measures - ie lockdown - are implemented" .
So far, the data in countries with proper and effective lockdowns more or less follow the second curve, while countries without lockdown follow more or less the first curve, so the hypothesis of "a lockdown has this effect" was not disproved, and is now the reigning theory.
That's not post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is literally how the scientific method and by extension science itself works.
It follows a similar trajectory as recycling, global warming, inequality, healthcare costs, etc. Obviously, no one can take "Personal Responsibility" to fix most of these issues. It doesn't matter is I recycle if 95% of the waste comes from corporations. It doesn't matter if I social distance and wear a mask if no one else does.
It is trotted out as the only "logical" response time and time again. How does this playbook keep working!
Psychology. That's why it keeps working.
'Personal responsibility' is empowering- telling people they make a difference (especially in their own lives) gives them an illusion of control they want.
Telling them that their actions are worthless because 95% comes from things they can't affect? That's crushing for people's sense of self-importance.
This is one of those cases were honesty is actually the worst policy (when it comes to motivating people)
I think you missed Easy E's point. Right now there's a bunch of people who have been trotting out the argument of they shouldn't have to take measures to protect others and it's the others' fault if they don't take measures to protect themselves.
China's numbers are off by at least an order of magnitude. Doesn't justify western countries fudging their own, of course... Looking forward to some independent reports when we're past the teeth of this thing.
China has the technology to trace infected and the will to quarantine them even if it means closing entire cities.
Regardless of the numbers involved, they have a far better hold on the virus than the nonsensical stupidity that has been the response of the Western Governments.
Tyran wrote: China has the technology to trace infected and the will to quarantine them even if it means closing entire cities.
Regardless of the numbers involved, they have a far better hold on the virus than the nonsensical stupidity that has been the response of the Western Governments.
One key aspect is that China has been through this mill before in recent times with the earlier Sars outbreaks. The western nations basically avoided all of them. SARS, Birdflue and Swineflu mostly blow over with a huge fuss. The latter two had big impacts on the rural communities, result in big shifts toward disease control measures being put into place that had had a lasting effect. Meanwhile birdflue decimated the poultry smallholders and its never really recovered (though rising grain prices have also been a huge issue since it was a hobby dominated by retired collectors and the like).
Corona has struck in a big way and its hit the city areas in a massive way. The result is that the west has its first pandemic in a very very long while. It's also something that spreads ever so quickly and easily into the population. We are where China was decades ago.
Tyran wrote: China has the technology to trace infected and the will to quarantine them even if it means closing entire cities.
Regardless of the numbers involved, they have a far better hold on the virus than the nonsensical stupidity that has been the response of the Western Governments.
If only we had an totalitarian authoritarian single party state who were willing to disappear their own citizens and put dissenters into concentration camps, we could all be free of this troublesome flu!
Tyran wrote: China has the technology to trace infected and the will to quarantine them even if it means closing entire cities.
Regardless of the numbers involved, they have a far better hold on the virus than the nonsensical stupidity that has been the response of the Western Governments.
But China doesn’t have to worry about the things Western Governments have to worry about, like civil rights...or even just basic human rights.
Lord Damocles wrote:If only we had an totalitarian authoritarian single party state who were willing to disappear their own citizens and put dissenters into concentration camps, we could all be free of this troublesome flu!
Future War Cultist wrote:But China doesn’t have to worry about the things Western Governments have to worry about, like civil rights...or even just basic human rights.
Western Government do have the legal resource to impose a state of emergency that limits such rights. The problem of democracies is not legal, but popular. No democratic government wants to risk their reelection chances and that's why we had idiots like Trump or Boris Johnson insisting on herd immunity, reopening the economy and of course potentially sacrificing millions of people.
You don't need to be a one party state to realize that people that protest with slogans like Sacrifice the Weak cannot be allowed to endanger the quarantine, their right to free expression ends when the right to live of everyone else starts.
Herd immunity is getting as many people as possible vaccinated so that those who can't don't get infected and can survive. Letting everybody get randomly infected and risking the death the weaker people is not herd immunity, that's just eugenics with extra steps.
Vaccinated with what?
With a vaccine… if we had one. That's why we all the those precautions about wearing masks, stoping huge concentrations of people, social distancing, and so on. It's better than just letting the virus run rampant. We don't have a vaccine so we can't afford to let the virus just spread randomly.
a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune
Emphasis mine.
(Mine in cyan) Okay, that technically correct but also seems to be practically completely useless from how the virus seems to propagate. The issue is that is seems that getting to a significant number of "previous infections" in the context of corona is rather difficult without sacrificing a lot of those vulnerable people (who would usually be the ones who benefit from herd immunity).
I'd still say that these plans that were based on the idea to let corona do a "Australian bushfire" over a whole population missed the whole point of why herd immunity is used (to protect those who can't survive otherwise). Those plans were just cruel ideas because those people put the economy before human lives and were willing to sacrifice people for their cause.
Tyran wrote: China has the technology to trace infected and the will to quarantine them even if it means closing entire cities.
Regardless of the numbers involved, they have a far better hold on the virus than the nonsensical stupidity that has been the response of the Western Governments.
If only we had an totalitarian authoritarian single party state who were willing to disappear their own citizens and put dissenters into concentration camps, we could all be free of this troublesome flu!
You'd be surprised how many people think this is a good idea. Just go on twitter
My company has decided that now the politicians have decided that it is safe to go back to work, all buildings are expected to go back to the office. WFH will be over because.... fear of labor laws and punch laws is leading the decisions. Workers get 0 input in it.
Those protests are paying great dividends for their astroturf sponsors. I would be impressed if i was sitting on the moon watching it all play out. In the thick of it, I am less impressed.
My company is taking the opposite approach, its seeing WFH as a huge potential financial boon and wants to push it as the new normal in perpetuity.
So report from the weekly shop - MY GODS THERE ARE CARS ON THE ROAD
With businesses starting to open up there was a very different air going around today. First up you can tell builders are working again. Concrete is moving around; work lorries and trucks are doing the rounds and whilst the builders merchants gates were still shut, they've a man on the gate and they are admitting trade vehicles. Clearly popping in for one or two items is out; but for those needing supplies they can now get at them.
Shopping wise a few more groups in the supermarkets yet again; lines and movement were pretty standard but there's a general air of things relaxing just a bit here and there around the place. More cars on the road - even an actual attempt at rush-hour. More people still out and around walking.
You can still see social distancing going on, you can still see edges of caution; but there's also a bit of an air of "Oh are we near the end".
Even though government has only technically relaxed things a little.
Thats what I'm seeing here in NJ over the past week or so. When all this started there was a very noticable lack of other cars on the road, I wouldn't have to wait at certain traffic crossings to cross the street, parking lots and drive thrus were empty, etc. etc. etc. over the past 1-2 weeks I'm seeing a "return to normalcy" in peoples traffic and shopping patterns that is pretty worrying considering that most things are still closed up, etc. Has me wondering where everyone is going and doing.
And then there was the whole Wisconsin situation, state Supreme Court struck down the governors lockdown/stay at home orders and a bunch of businesses immediately reopened. The videos and photos of packed pubs filled with partyers and staff not observing distancing rules or wearing masks, etc. speaks volumes.
Apart from studies not showing much if any? Plus better to assume this corona is like previous corona virus unless evidence points otherwise. Previous corona viruses haven"t given much of longterm immunity. And being 4-8 weeks safe isn't much of help.
As I understand it other coronaviruses give a 2-3 year immunity period, which would still, theoretically, be enough for herd immunity to matter.
Virus mutation is entirely random, due to errors in the RNA replication process. You can't definitely say it will or won't mutate, or that it will or won't become less deadly as a result.
Virus mutation is random but virus survival/evolution is not (well, it is, but its predictable). A less lethal virus has more opportunities for transmission, which means that as a "species" that strain of virus is more survivable and more likely to pass on its traits. Generally speaking, more lethal viruses kill their hosts to quickly and efficiently to become widespread because the host doesn't survive long enough to allow a sufficient number of others to become hosts in turn and perpetuate its life cycle. There are rare exceptions to this like HIV/AIDS which is more or less 100% fatal but take so long to kill you that they have plenty of opportunity to spread, but these are exceptions rather than norms.
What is the average American feeling down there? Are people concerned? You can’t tell from US media because it’s so partisan. It seems like 100,000 deaths will be coming an about a week. Will that benchmark alarm people or are folks kind of over this whole Coronavirus virus thing?
For me, life hasn't changed much as I still go to my office job daily, I just wear a mask now when I do it and all meetings are via conference call instead of in-person. My girlfriend on the other hand has been working from home so she only gets to go outside once in a bit, we try to go for walks through the park daily to help keep her sane. Personally, I think I'm more caught up in the politics revolving around the disease than I am in the disease itself. I'm not living in fear that COVID will kill me, in fact I'm probably more afraid that someone will attack me for wearing a mask or promoting good hygiene than I am about getting sick. We've been eating out more, trying to support local businesses weather the storm, etc. and accepting whatever risks might be inherent to that - we assume that the employees at said establishments are taking reasonable measures themselves to prevent the spread.
And when the death toll climbs ever further, and worse, the virus mutates again, we can at last point to every single pseudo-science cretin, every woo peddler. Every agent provovacteur claiming it’s 5G, or Bill Gates behind it. Every last anti-Vaxxer. Every single idiot screwing this all up, and say?
[i]This. Is. On. You. You did this. No-one else.
Im kinda of the same mindset, especially since it seems like that crowd would be amongst the most likely to suffer and die from it in the process, i.e. doing the rest of us a favor by removing themselves from the gene pool and gestalt consciousness.
Of course, not enough of them would go or have their viewpoints broken for it to matter, and those that survived would easily be able to find a way to excuse themselves and look the other way, so theres no winning in this scenario.
In my opinion the government is in the middle of a sunk cost dilemma. They can't relax things any further without having to admit they were wrong, which would cause them a huge hit politically.
This implies that they were wrong to begin with - all evidence points to the contrary.
I'm not buying the herd immunity theory. Anyone have any evidence as to why i should?
You made some good points, for the most part the herd immunity criterion we rely on for most serious diseases is enabled by vaccination rather than by infection, whereas those preaching a "herd immunity" strategy are doing so with the intent of infection because no vaccine is yet available. This distinction seems to have been lost by those who have responded to you as they all are pointing out examples of diseases that relied on said vaccinations.
So even if we assume evolution could produce a herd immunity effect in as little as 5 generations it's 90 years until that fifth generation happens, at a minimum.
Except thats not how herd immunity works, chief. Herd immunity is produced by self-infection or vaccination, its generally not something thats passed on generationally. I.E. you get herd immunity by getting x% of the population sick with it (where x is probably around 50-60%), and hope that theres a resulting antibody resistance that persists for a period long enough for it to matter (needs to be several years minimum). You maintain herd immunity by maintaining a % of the population with antibody resistance above that x% threshold - which means people will continue to get sick in perpetuity.
Lets be clear here - herd immunity does not mean that nobody will ever get sick from the disease again and that the disease is eradicated. It means that the diseases ability to ravage a population is limited by there being a proportion of individuals who cannot act as transmission vectors as a result of having become immunized through some past event, thus combating the diseases ability to spread freely. People will still get sick from it and die, but at a much lower rate.
There will be a vaccine, in due course. Because this is a Flu variant. We’re even in the (accelerated) human testing stage.
Its not a flu variant, coronavirus is a completely different virus family from influenza. This is like saying that cats are a form of dog. Its simply incorrect. For the record - there is not a vaccine for any of the other coronaviruses, in part because longstanding herd immunity, low mutability, and low severety of other coronaviruses has limited the need for one, but also because previous attempts at producing vaccines for them haven't worked.
Saying 'lockdown has worked' is just an assertion. There is no solid empirical evidence to back this up. It just is.
Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong. It amazes me how people of a certain belief just seem to make unfounded statements that buck all empirical evidence and long-standing scientific knowledge and expect hat everyone will just take them at their word. Social Distancing works, its a longstanding fact and has been part of counter-epidemic playbooks for decades and theres a huge body of historical and scientific evidence to support that, including countless peer-reviewed studies. A lockdown is a government enforced extension to social distancing - by default, they work. I could entertain an intelligent debate as to the extent to which a lockdown improves the effectiveness of social distancing measures and whether those benefits are worth the cost (in this case theres a large number of economic cost-benefit analyses by numerous reputable think-tanks and economists that say that yes, in fact, lockdowns have greater financial and economic benefits than they do costs), but I will not tolerate the abject stupidity associated with making completely unfounded statements that fly in the face of science, logic, and reason.
Sweden is following the exact same curve as every other country.
No they aren't, but if I was mathematically and statistically illiterate I would understand why you would think that. Theres no such thing as the "same exact curve". I already explained to sporebar why this is a faulty and flawed argument, you can scroll back if you want to understand why.
The very fact that Sweden is below many other countries in deaths and cases, without lockdown, shows that lockdown is not a particularly relevant factor. if it wasnt the case, then their rates should still be rising, higher than everyone else.
Sweden had the highest deaths per capita in Europe last week and amongst the highest in the world, despite being one of the least densely populated nations in both categories, and in fact their rates *are* still rising.
Seriously, do you even research the gak you spew before you post it??? If Sweden had a larger population the numbers coming out of there would be catastrophic.
I've looked at the other countries. but death rate alone is not really an indictaor. the curve is following the same path.
No its not, the last few links I shared should pretty much prove that to you. If not maybe this one will:
or this one which will hopefully give you a better picture of what the curves, in practice, are actually telling you - note that every nation has a DIFFERENT curve, and in Swedens case they have NOT "bent" the curve, which would mean beating the virus:
They're all following the same trajectory. It's really not that hard to understand.
Do you know what "logarithmic" means? Im guessing no, because if you did you would understand how absolutely wrong this statement is. Heres a hint, the horizontal lines on the graph aren't increasingly linearly - Denmark, Norway and Finland are all at or below the 10,000 line, the line below the 10,000 line is 1,000, the line above the 10,000 line is 100,000. I.E. Sweden is sitting at the halfway point between the 10,000 and 100,000 line. The curves *look* similar because they are being displayed non-linearly, thats how *all* similar datasets are going to look when viewed under a logarithmic scale.
Tyran wrote: China has the technology to trace infected and the will to quarantine them even if it means closing entire cities.
Regardless of the numbers involved, they have a far better hold on the virus than the nonsensical stupidity that has been the response of the Western Governments.
If only we had an totalitarian authoritarian single party state who were willing to disappear their own citizens and put dissenters into concentration camps, we could all be free of this troublesome flu!
You'd be surprised how many people think this is a good idea. Just go on twitter
Right, because Twitter reflects reality. Just ask Bernie Sanders.
6 out of 748 Premiership footballers & staff just tested in the UK were positive for the virus (bbc news just now)
so just under 1% which given the fact they're not going to have needed to go out and about working is a fairly depressing snapshot of the levels of infection still around
(of course they could have been being stupid and not hiding in their mansions)
Kanluwen wrote: I think you missed Easy E's point. Right now there's a bunch of people who have been trotting out the argument of they shouldn't have to take measures to protect others and it's the others' fault if they don't take measures to protect themselves.
Eeeeexactly. They should be able to be idiots (to the tune of "It's our Constitutional Right to be free and un-oppressed!!!!), at the expense of others being hyper-vigilant.
It's the age-old method of making it someone else's fault/problem.
Which is hilarious, because that means sacrificing someone ELSES freedoms so yours, which are supposedly held so dear, aren't restricted. Or we could all just sacrifice together as an example of compassion and solidarity. Most of society and economy could work with responsible social distancing, masks all around (on everyone who can wear them) to keep infected people with no symptoms from infecting others, and occasionally using gloves when really needed (when you don't have a quick way to wash hands). Then it becomes mostly infection by accident, which supposedly can be more easily managed as smaller outbreaks happen.
Kanluwen wrote: I think you missed Easy E's point. Right now there's a bunch of people who have been trotting out the argument of they shouldn't have to take measures to protect others and it's the others' fault if they don't take measures to protect themselves.
Yes, I know. And politicians keep trotting out 'this playbook' because its what those people want to hear. Their illusions are worth more to them than other people's lives.
Pretending we're better than them is willingly embracing ignorance for the sake of a bizarre, misguided sense of superiority. I mean, do that if that's what you need to do, but don't pretend it's anything other than what it is.
True. My wife is quite worried about things this fall, as she is a High School teacher. There's an obvious problem with social distancing there, as well as wearing masks vs. being able to be heard across a classroom.
Matt Swain wrote: Dukeofstuff, first off you never met my grandfather and you don't know what he would have pointed out.
Secondly, herd immunity as far as I know never effecitvely eradicated a single disease. It may have reduced their death tolls but it took vaccinations to effectively make them non issues to the vast majority of the human race.
So I'm not waiting. I don't care if we have to "gut the military" (Which is what some people call no increasing military spending every year, let alone reducing it in any way) to finance covid vaccine research, we go with vaccine research.
I believe we should start transferring money from the military finding to covid vaccine research, and keep it up till we get it. Manhattan project levels of funding and research till we get the vaccine.
Respectfully, if you introduce a personal anecdote into a debate, you can't then take it personally if someone uses it in their counterpoint.
IF. you seem very sure that there's a vaccine out there just waiting to be found, so what's your plan when none appears? We just throw money at scientists ad infinitum?
You want to know what my plan is "when" no vaccine "appears"?
I'll tell you.
I'd keep "throwing money at it". And yes I'd pull that money from the military, so what if we have a few less desert junkyards full of multi million dollar aircraft that were build and became obsolete without being used?
I'd keep throwing money at it and I'd store every bit of data from every failed experiment, every dead end research, every attempt made that didn't pan out and I'd keep researching covid, and every time new information about it was discovered I would have some researches look thru the old experiments and research projects that hadn't been successful to see if the new data could be applied to them and possibly make them successful.
AND I'd fund research into newer, faster, cheaper and more reliable tests kits that were easy to make, store and use. AND I'd fund research into treatments to save infected people in danger.
You want to know what my plan is "when" no vaccine "appears"?
I'll tell you.
I'd keep "throwing money at it". And yes I'd pull that money from the military, so what if we have a few less desert junkyards full of multi million dollar aircraft that were build and became obsolete without being used?
I'd keep throwing money at it and I'd store every bit of data from every failed experiment, every dead end research, every attempt made that didn't pan out and I'd keep researching covid, and every time new information about it was discovered I would have some researches look thru the old experiments and research projects that hadn't been successful to see if the new data could be applied to them and possibly make them successful.
AND I'd fund research into newer, faster, cheaper and more reliable tests kits that were easy to make, store and use. AND I'd fund research into treatments to save infected people in danger.
That's what I'd do "when" no vaccine "appeared".
Coronavirus vaccines are relatively ineffective and by the time we have a COVID-19 vaccine the disease will have burnt itself out because everybody will have caught it. Throwing money at a COVID-19 vaccine is as useless as tits on a boar because the disease will be long gone by the time a vaccine could possibly be developed.
The only worthwhile thing to throw money at is to triage those who are sick with it so we can get through this. Curing this disease is simply not possible. The only thing that can be done is to survive it. That would be better use than wasting time on a vaccine that will not come in time or actually have the effect people think it will have.
Grey Templar wrote: Coronavirus vaccines are relatively ineffective and by the time we have a COVID-19 vaccine the disease will have burnt itself out because everybody will have caught it. Throwing money at a COVID-19 vaccine is as useless as tits on a boar because the disease will be long gone by the time a vaccine could possibly be developed.
The only worthwhile thing to throw money at is to triage those who are sick with it so we can get through this. Curing this disease is simply not possible. The only thing that can be done is to survive it. That would be better use than wasting time on a vaccine that will not come in time or actually have the effect people think it will have.
It most likely won't burn out though, because so far we know little in the way of if and how long people are immune if they get it. It will probably be a recurring virus without a vaccine, given how far it has already spread around the world. That seems to be the prevalent opinion in the epidemiological community. Also, tits on a boar are useful, because boar are mammals and thus they get them when they have offspring that suckle milk from them?
Surely this is parody? Satire? Joke? SOMETHING other than entitled stupidity?
That’s just one of the local beaches to where i live, they were all packed out apart from those that kept the parking closed. Masses and masses of fools. Here comes a second peak and another lock down at this rate.
Coronavirus vaccines are relatively ineffective and by the time we have a COVID-19 vaccine the disease will have burnt itself out because everybody will have caught it. Throwing money at a COVID-19 vaccine is as useless as tits on a boar because the disease will be long gone by the time a vaccine could possibly be developed.
The only worthwhile thing to throw money at is to triage those who are sick with it so we can get through this. Curing this disease is simply not possible. The only thing that can be done is to survive it. That would be better use than wasting time on a vaccine that will not come in time or actually have the effect people think it will have.
Catching it isn't quarantee of being immune to it forever. It's no good that everybody has caught it once it goes for 2nd route.
There's still zero evidence you gain long term immunity from catching it.
You want this lockdown to be yearly thing? If not better hope for that vaccine. Or it will be yearly killer instead(killer that already is often exceeding previous #1 daily killer in US and soon has killed more people in US than ww2 did...).
Yearly lockdown or each year losing couple hundrek thousand people in the world for this. Avoiding either of those with vaccine is decent result. Or do you really want one of those 2 things to happen? Price of vaccine is certainly peanuts compared to price of lockdowns so guess you would prefer hundreds of thousands of deaths each year to this over paying price of vaccine...Interesting priorities you have. So little value for human life.
Catching it isn't quarantee of being immune to it forever. It's no good that everybody has caught it once it goes for 2nd route.
There's still zero evidence you gain long term immunity from catching it.
You want this lockdown to be yearly thing? If not better hope for that vaccine. Or it will be yearly killer instead(killer that already is often exceeding previous #1 daily killer in US and soon has killed more people in US than ww2 did...).
Yearly lockdown or each year losing couple hundrek thousand people in the world for this. Avoiding either of those with vaccine is decent result. Or do you really want one of those 2 things to happen? Price of vaccine is certainly peanuts compared to price of lockdowns so guess you would prefer hundreds of thousands of deaths each year to this over paying price of vaccine...Interesting priorities you have. So little value for human life.
Long term immunity is unnecessary. It only needs to last a couple of years, which is typical of other viruses of this type. That is enough time for the virus to be destroyed via natural causes. It either wastes itself in people who are immune or it mutates itself into something irrelevant.
Remember, all flu viruses were once super deadly bugs like COVID-19. Then people became resistant and the virus was just another flu virus among the millions of boring viruses that wash about each year.
We won't have to lock down next year or the year after because everybody will have already had it. The absolute worst case scenario for the virus has it being over within 2 years. A vaccine is much further away than 2 years in any realistic sense. So since we can't get a vaccine before the disease goes away on its own then there is no point in wasting energy on it.
Most of these viruses have about a year or two worth of immunity if you get it. There are currently 4 common Coronaviruses recurring, they don't all just burn out like SARS. Not all viruses start of super deadly either. Look at Swine Flu for example, much less deadly than we know Covid-19 is so far
Surely this is parody? Satire? Joke? SOMETHING other than entitled stupidity?
That’s just one of the local beaches to where i live, they were all packed out apart from those that kept the parking closed. Masses and masses of fools. Here comes a second peak and another lock down at this rate.
Even if it hangs around stubbornly, its still not worth a vaccine. The death's that a vaccine might prevent over the next 5-6 years will be very small compared to what what could be saved if that $ was put towards treating the people who are sick now. Or going after other more dangerous diseases.
Eh, I think it's good to bring to light the Social Darwinist undertone of the pro-disease side, after all people should know explicitly who's advocating for "culling the weak" who "cost society".
Grey Templar wrote: Even if it hangs around stubbornly, its still not worth a vaccine. The death's that a vaccine might prevent over the next 5-6 years will be very small compared to what what could be saved if that $ was put towards treating the people who are sick now. Or going after other more dangerous diseases.
Its not an either/or question though. Develop a vaccine now and you might sufficiently wipe it out for it to no longer be a large problem. How much $ does that save over the next decade if its recurring? Also going after more dangerous diseases? No one was prevented from doing that before Covid-19, they just had no financial incentive. This pandemic has hit the richer countries, hence them pouring funding into this, lets not state that all this funding for Covid-19 would have gone to other disease research.
Grey Templar wrote: Even if it hangs around stubbornly, its still not worth a vaccine. The death's that a vaccine might prevent over the next 5-6 years will be very small compared to what what could be saved if that $ was put towards treating the people who are sick now. Or going after other more dangerous diseases.
Eh haven't you followed news at all? Haven't you seen how much these lockdowns are costing? Compared to that vaccine is PEANUTS.
So clearly you are flatly against lockdown since you are proposing smaller amount of cash spent on vaccine than lockdown is too expensive(I presume you have at least some sense of logic...claiming vaccine is too expensive but even more expensive lockdown is totally fine use of money would be silly...). Thus we get back to you preferring hundred's of thousands of deaths each year over cost of vaccine(which btw can still be helpful for other diseases. What happens when there comes out even more deadly corona strand? Vaccine to this could give headstart or even prevent it...And seeing we don't have efficient corona vaccine right now better to come up with one now vs when even more deadly corona virus comes out).
We are at 300k death in about half a year with only ~3 months it's been spreading in europe. Hundred's of thousands of deaths per year could even be understatement if this is let to be recurring one without vaccine. Or we are down at lockdown or two per year which costs so much the vaccine cost will be elementary school kid's pocket money in comparison.
And why next 5-6 years? You think this will just dissapear on it's own without vaccine? Think next 100 year for more fun.
And it's not even binary on/off choice. Imagine that. You can create vaccine AND help people now. Isn't that weird idea. Multitasking! How weird concept. Doing more than 1 thing at a time. Such a novel idea!
Surely this is parody? Satire? Joke? SOMETHING other than entitled stupidity?
No, it’s the much vaunted British common sense. You know, the one that Boris said will see us through this and resulted in him and his team all getting the virus through proudly shaking hands with people.
It’s delusional to think this disease will last for more than a couple years, much less a hundred. This disease will not keep killing people at the rate it is currently. It’ll sharply drop off before the next few months are over. And yes. I am against the lockdowns continuing further or how they have been hamfistingly implemented.
Eh, I think it's good to bring to light the Social Darwinist undertone of the pro-disease side, after all people should know explicitly who's advocating for "culling the weak" who "cost society".
Well, aside from a few lunatics who actually believe that sort of thing, I dont think many are Pro-Disease. Or are you lumping everyone with a dissenting opinion into that group?
Grey Templar wrote: Even if it hangs around stubbornly, its still not worth a vaccine. The death's that a vaccine might prevent over the next 5-6 years will be very small compared to what what could be saved if that $ was put towards treating the people who are sick now. Or going after other more dangerous diseases.
Eh haven't you followed news at all? Haven't you seen how much these lockdowns are costing? Compared to that vaccine is PEANUTS.
So clearly you are flatly against lockdown since you are proposing smaller amount of cash spent on vaccine than lockdown is too expensive(I presume you have at least some sense of logic...claiming vaccine is too expensive but even more expensive lockdown is totally fine use of money would be silly...). Thus we get back to you preferring hundred's of thousands of deaths each year over cost of vaccine(which btw can still be helpful for other diseases. What happens when there comes out even more deadly corona strand? Vaccine to this could give headstart or even prevent it...And seeing we don't have efficient corona vaccine right now better to come up with one now vs when even more deadly corona virus comes out).
We are at 300k death in about half a year with only ~3 months it's been spreading in europe. Hundred's of thousands of deaths per year could even be understatement if this is let to be recurring one without vaccine. Or we are down at lockdown or two per year which costs so much the vaccine cost will be elementary school kid's pocket money in comparison.
And why next 5-6 years? You think this will just dissapear on it's own without vaccine? Think next 100 year for more fun.
And it's not even binary on/off choice. Imagine that. You can create vaccine AND help people now. Isn't that weird idea. Multitasking! How weird concept. Doing more than 1 thing at a time. Such a novel idea!
I love these. so much. your inferences are incredible.
The death rate is dropping off because almost the entire world is doing everything it can to prevent infection. Infection rates going down is the reason the death rate is slowing, not because the virus is less deadly now.
So, Im not going back to work till the earliest in August, got put on special assignment by my work putting on a digital summercamp.
and work just mentioned that if the lockdown is lifted, only about a 3rd of employees will be working on any given day, rest will be given spent on special assignment.
Grey Templar wrote: It’s delusional to think this disease will last for more than a couple years, much less a hundred. This disease will not keep killing people at the rate it is currently. It’ll sharply drop off before the next few months are over. And yes. I am against the lockdowns continuing further or how they have been hamfistingly implemented.
the family of the virus has been first charachterised in the 1960s.
has birthed both mers and sars aswell.
either you know something the rest of us do not or you are talking nonsense.
Am very fortunate to be working for a company with an extremely strong H&S culture and dedicated risk analysis departments.
Even during the bungled "you should now return to work" that came late the other Sunday, followed by the retractions the next day, the message of 'work from home if at all possible' has never wavered.
The problem is that they know they can't even assure safety. Even with heat/fever cameras, enforced distancing, masks/gloves and a sparsely populated office the virus is so commutable and the fact that it can be carried asymptomatically means there will still be some transmission.
Current rumour is that return to places of work wholesale will not happen until a vaccine is available.
What will be interesting coming out of all of this (if and when any kind of normal life is resumed - perhaps a vaccine plus proven tracking and isolation) is how the work culture will have changed for certain job sectors. What need to spend hours of your life every week commuting through heavy traffic, hundreds of £ on travel costs and maintenance of work facilities if it has been proven that the work can largely be carried out remotely and for less cost?
'Rambaut, too, doubts that the virus will become milder over time and spare its host. “It doesn’t work that way,” he says. As long as it can successfully infect new cells, reproduce and transmit to new ones, it doesn’t matter whether it harms the host, he says.
But others think there is a chance for a better outcome. It might give people antibodies that will offer at least partial protection, says Klaus Stöhr, who headed the World Health Organization’s SARS research and epidemiology division. Stöhr says that immunity will not be perfect — people who are reinfected will still develop minor symptoms, the way they do now from the common cold, and there will be rare examples of severe disease. But the virus’s proofreading mechanism means it will not mutate quickly, and people who were infected will retain robust protection, he says.
“By far the most likely scenario is that the virus will continue to spread and infect most of the world population in a relatively short period of time,” says Stöhr, meaning one to two years. “Afterwards, the virus will continue to spread in the human population, likely forever.” Like the four generally mild human coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 would then circulate constantly and cause mainly mild upper respiratory tract infections, says Stöhr. For that reason, he adds, vaccines won’t be necessary.
Some previous studies support this argument. One10 showed that when people were inoculated with the common-cold coronavirus 229E, their antibody levels peaked two weeks later and were only slightly raised after a year. That did not prevent infections a year later, but subsequent infections led to few, if any, symptoms and a shorter period of viral shedding.'
The OC43 coronavirus offers a model for where this pandemic might go. That virus also gives humans common colds, but genetic research from the University of Leuven in Belgium suggests that OC43 might have been a killer in the past11. That study indicates that OC43 spilled over to humans in around 1890 from cows, which got it from mice. The scientists suggest that OC43 was responsible for a pandemic that killed more than one million people worldwide in 1889–90 — an outbreak previously blamed on influenza. Today, OC43 continues to circulate widely and it might be that continual exposure to the virus keeps the great majority of people immune to it.
Cambridge have said that all lectures will be online for the duration of the 2020/21 academic term. I expect now that one of the big two has made the call that other Russell Group institutions will follow suit. We (UofGlasgow) are looking at reworking courses for online delivery for at least the first semester.
Before it gets lots of news attention, however, it's worth knowing that the overwhelming majority of teaching at Cambridge is done in supervisions and seminars in small groups (generally 5 or less) and they still hope to have these. We'll see what other universities who are reliant on large groups and don't have the abundance of spacious teaching facilities that Cambridge colleges have decide to do.
Whoops a doodle! Data breach already on a Coronavirus tracking app in the U.K.
and people wonder why we want local data saving over here and why it was such a big deal that we literally stopped working with the EU because of their insistence on saving data centrally.
Grey Templar wrote: Even if it hangs around stubbornly, its still not worth a vaccine. The death's that a vaccine might prevent over the next 5-6 years will be very small compared to what what could be saved if that $ was put towards treating the people who are sick now. Or going after other more dangerous diseases.
No. It’s the deaths going forward, not in a neat little time bundle.
See, you need to look at what happens when idiots listen to the like of Jenny ‘no medical qualifications at all, but she’s on the Internet so clearly knows all’ McCarthy. The sort that don’t even grasp that Andrew ‘struck off, disbarred, disgraced’ Wakefield’s dodgy paper was saying a single, very specific vaccine (combined MMR) May have a link to autism, not that all vaccines cause autism, refuse to get their kids vaccinated.
Diseases all but eradicated start coming back. Look into it, there’s (reliable, verifiable, scientific) evidence out there - and no few dead kids.
That is why a vaccine is important for any emergent disease. Because the thing with diseases? They don’t just go away on their own, like an irritating relative come to visit for the afternoon. Once they’re here, they’re here.
What’s the cost of treating the future cases where we don’t bother developing a vaccine?
. Not a typo at all 
. No sirree.
