here in the shire it appears fire is the weapon of choice against the virus , as a few sunny days and ill considered bbqs are go
special no prize to the funts that tried to set fire to the beach as whilst sand takes some burnation the dry grass the stablises the dunes is another thing
Things I’ve never seen, directly, with my own eyes.
1. A pilot flying a plane.
2. A submarine actually pootling about under the waves.
3. One of those big old cranes being put together.
4. An elevator being installed.
5. A sewer being installed
6. Puppies being born. Or indeed, anything being born.
At the very least, government explicitly lied about his father's interaction with police, then called the cops liars for saying otherwise, then decided that wasn't the case and that they spoke about something else as well as his presence in Durham so it doesn't count, and that seems worthy of at least a hint of curiosity?
It's probably torpedoed tons of fines handed out for breaking lockdown, so I imagine you're glad it's hit the news hard for that reason, if nothing else?
Well, I don't think those fines should have been handed out, point blank. But, I don't think a situation like this should be used to overturn them, they should just be overturned.
I wouldn't be naive enough to think this couldn't possibly be a post hoc justification of the actions he knows he got caught out on, he's definitely had plenty of time to work on that statement.
But, I have to say there's enough that I find credible that I think it was ill advised but well meaning.
Well, as I expected, the questions are clearly going to just be the same thing over and over, trying to wring an apology out of him. Hope he sticks to his principles.
Is there any actual update on recovery rates? Only right now the UK still doesn't seem to be having any and far as I can tell the big aggregate stats sites are still showing NA for recovery.
What little I could find in the media shows a few random values floating around on earlier dates, though one reported that one reason we don't have it is that the hospitals weren't recording recovery rates and that government wasn't up to merging out-of-hospital rates into it either.
His point is that he went there because they could stay away from people, and where there was access to very low risk carers if it became needed.
Presumably taking his children to his sister would involve exposing her and her family. Equally I live near family, but it doesn't mean my house has the space to accommodate a small child if they needed one looked after.
His point is that he went there because they could stay away from people, and where there was access to very low risk carers if it became needed.
Presumably taking his children to his sister would involve exposing her and her family. Equally I live near family, but it doesn't mean my house has the space to accommodate a small child if they needed one looked after.
Driving 250 miles is always a risk and potentially if there had been an acident, a breakdown etc he would have put others at risk.
Driving that distance when absolutely everyone was told not to and later finding loopholes to squirm through does not IMO make it right.
Well for a bumbling, non public speaker, he came out of that a lot better than most other public figures would have if faced with the same. Made it through their interrogation without being cowed into an apology. Respect.
His point is that he went there because they could stay away from people, and where there was access to very low risk carers if it became needed.
Presumably taking his children to his sister would involve exposing her and her family. Equally I live near family, but it doesn't mean my house has the space to accommodate a small child if they needed one looked after.
Driving 250 miles is always a risk and potentially if there had been an acident, a breakdown etc he would have put others at risk.
Driving that distance when absolutely everyone was told not to and later finding loopholes to squirm through does not IMO make it right.
I've argued against unnecessary journeys ITT, for precisely that reason. The core of the issue is what one seems "necessary" or "unnecessary" is personal, and while I don't necessarily agree with his choices, I do believe he thought his actions necessary.
Plus I do believe there's an argument for getting his family away from his house given the way the press have behaved. The footage yesterday of the scrum doorstep ping him totally ignoring social distancing from him or each other were worse than anything he's been accused of, why wouldn't a husband and father want to get his family away from that?
In happier news, fewer than 100 deaths in the entirety of the UK yesterday, even allowing for the weekend dip, that's really positive.
His point is that he went there because they could stay away from people, and where there was access to very low risk carers if it became needed.
Presumably taking his children to his sister would involve exposing her and her family. Equally I live near family, but it doesn't mean my house has the space to accommodate a small child if they needed one looked after.
Driving 250 miles is always a risk and potentially if there had been an acident, a breakdown etc he would have put others at risk.
Driving that distance when absolutely everyone was told not to and later finding loopholes to squirm through does not IMO make it right.
I've argued against unnecessary journeys ITT, for precisely that reason. The core of the issue is what one seems "necessary" or "unnecessary" is personal, and while I don't necessarily agree with his choices, I do believe he thought his actions necessary.
Plus I do believe there's an argument for getting his family away from his house given the way the press have behaved. The footage yesterday of the scrum doorstep ping him totally ignoring social distancing from him or each other were worse than anything he's been accused of, why wouldn't a husband and father want to get his family away from that?
In happier news, fewer than 100 deaths in the entirety of the UK yesterday, even allowing for the weekend dip, that's really positive.
I don't agre with anyone being mobbed by the press - however his claims seemed very dubious
I was not sure if I was fit to drive - so set off to a local beauty spot with my wife and kid in the car......
I was very ill so I drove 250 miles....
It was all the medias fault...
My second home was not a second home it was an empty building and not a very nice one.
- he wasn't ill on either occasion when he drove 250 miles. He wasn't showing symptoms on the way up, he was recovering on the way back.
- he didn't blame the media exclusively, he did cite misreporting as a contribution to public reaction.
- it was his family home, he knew he could safely isolate with access to care in an emergency with low risk to the potential carers.
I agree that taking an apparent jolly to see how he held up to driving seems a little odd, but his apparent mental facepalm when a journo pointed out he could have just set out for home and turned back if necessary looked natural.
Generally, a very well written statement. Maybe just inside the degree of goading the tabloids that he might bot have begged them to make sure they end his career.
Three errors in his pitch, I think:
Took his wife and child on a 30mile drive to a beauty spot on his wife's birthday to test his eyesight? Well, I'm convinced.
He's certainly furious with misrepresentation in the papers. Must be livid with his wife.
Repeated references, like the government line of the last two days, to 'many of the stories' which are false, but with only a single example (his return to Durham).
To push back on topic, However, if the core critique is that his behaviour encourages others to ignore lockdown, and therefore endangers people, then he's done nothing to alleviate it whatsoever.
I was thinking when Boris chaired the press conference last night that while he was backing him in public, I'd expect the administration of the mother of all atomic bollockings had taken place beforehand!
Azreal13 wrote: I was thinking when Boris chaired the press conference last night that while he was backing him in public, I'd expect the administration of the mother of all atomic bollockings had taken place beforehand!
If it did, Johnson was receiving, not administering.
I don’t know what to think. Dom has clearly gak the bed on this one, and it’s going to play havoc with public safety enforcement. Honest mistake maybe, but still a mistake...and a fething big one too.
But there’s a lot of jackals out there with chips on their shoulders just looking for any excuse to get him...yet he’s only got himself to blame. He’s given them the excuse they needed himself.
I don’t know...my gut says he should probably go...I don’t know.
nfe wrote: Generally, a very well written statement. Maybe just inside the degree of goading the tabloids that he might bot have begged them to make sure they end his career.
Three errors in his pitch, I think:
Took his wife and child on a 30mile drive to a beauty spot on his wife's birthday to test his eyesight? Well, I'm convinced.
He's certainly furious with misrepresentation in the papers. Must be livid with his wife.
Repeated references, like the government line of the last two days, to 'many of the stories' which are false, but with only a single example (his return to Durham).
To push back on topic, However, if the core critique is that his behaviour encourages others to ignore lockdown, and therefore endangers people, then he's done nothing to alleviate it whatsoever.
For me thats the biggest worry
He pretty much said the rules were to be interpreted as one needed them to be to fit your own circumstance using "common sense" - now people are going use that to justify anything - especially if they have kids - becuase he did and the Prime Minister said he was right
nfe wrote: Three errors in his pitch, I think:
Took his wife and child on a 30mile drive to a beauty spot on his wife's birthday to test his eyesight? Well, I'm convinced.
This is the point it becomes relatively unbelievable and hence makes the rest sound suspicious as well. In effect his first argument is he travelled 250 miles north to protect his family and have his niece child care if needed. However here he is saying he was worried about his eyesight and (by implication) worried about safety. So as such the next logical thing to do is take said child in the car for a 60 mile 'test drive' to make sure he was safe to drive. Albeit he could have simply left said child with the niece (having already been tested negative for COVID19) to ensure the child's safety just in case his eyesight did deteriorate and has an accident because of it. Then we have why go to a local scenic spot to test the eyesight. Perhaps more appropriate would have been a short 5 mile journey (around the block first) and then a journey to a motorway and run down to the next junction (which would have been much more appropriate to test his eyes for the return journey). Instead he randomly decides that this beauty spot was the most appropriate location for this journey. Basically this story smells as bad as rotting fish heads that have been left in the sun for three days and to an extent seems fairly contrived as he has confirmed that the papers were correct but the rationale will never really be able to be proved (except the 19th April being seen again - thought noting he specifically noted the date, and hence raises the question whether the report just got the date wrong).
Then we have to review the reason for leaving London. Although concerns for child care is reasonable. Having two parents seriously sick at the same time is very unlikely. If it was likely then there maybe some justification, however despite 100,000's of people catching the disease in the UK there has not been an influx of child refugees because both parents have been unable to manage them (in fact I haven't heard of any cases but there are probably a few). As such the concern is very exaggerated compared to reality. Ultimately he did the same thing that many people did a the half week before lock down came into force, ran for the hills/second home when the risk became 'real'.
Then we have to review the reason for leaving London. Although concerns for child care is reasonable. Having two parents seriously sick at the same time is very unlikely. If it was likely then there maybe some justification, however despite 100,000's of people catching the disease in the UK there has not been an influx of child refugees because both parents have been unable to manage them (in fact I haven't heard of any cases but there are probably a few). As such the concern is very exaggerated compared to reality. Ultimately he did the same thing that many people did a the half week before lock down came into force, ran for the hills/second home when the risk became 'real'.
Plus, you know, his wife's sister lives round the corner in London.
That doesn't really mean much.. my in laws (brother) wouldn't be my first choice of childcare either. They could have any number of situations as to why they weren't chosen.
He'll I wouldn't put my siblings as first choice either. Bless em
queen_annes_revenge wrote: That doesn't really mean much.. my in laws (brother) wouldn't be my first choice of childcare either. They could have any number of situations as to why they weren't chosen.
He'll I wouldn't put my siblings as first choice either. Bless em
Sure, but they'd be a good choice to drive your family to whoever your first choice of childcare is, instead of doing so yourself while your ability to drive is compromised.
Masterful bit of spin coming from Dominic Cummings. Fortunate circumstances and timing on this as Lockdown begins to be eased. Thank god for a self administered eyesight check!
The 'media' is really as poor as our current crop of politicos atm. Scenting 'blood' and having a target like Cummings - who doesn't play their game'.
Media could have tied this back to Cummings to really pin down the government and its handling of the crisis so far. Alas they have plucked the shiny, gleaming, low hanging fruit. Cummings has made a public statement....And that is now case closed.
Boris is still doing what he does. The Government are still getting away with complete bollocks. Cummings still has a job.
Took my little girl to the River Thames today to paddle. Place was absolutely rammed. People swimming and sunbathing, yet still we managed to maintain distance from people, barring the odd kid splashing past or people passing by. Short encounters that last no more than a second or two. This is why I dont see the issue with outdoor activity.
Only saw one police van, and in the words of the great warrior poet ice cube... 'they rolled right past me. It was a good day'
Took my little girl to the River Thames today to paddle. Place was absolutely rammed. People swimming and sunbathing, yet still we managed to maintain distance from people, barring the odd kid splashing past or people passing by. Short encounters that last no more than a second or two. This is why I dont see the issue with outdoor activity.
Only saw one police van, and in the words of the great warrior poet; ice cube... 'they rolled right past me. It was a good day'
And that's all the virus needs to spread. The wind makes the distancing pointless.
Jesus Christ the local news is a litany of stupid.
In 3 separate incidents 2 people have drowned and six surfers rescued (3 sent to hospital) despite warnings not to enter the ocean because there's currently no lifeguards on duty.
Despite that, retired lifeguards and other semi-qualified people have ended up risking their necks because people are too dumb to comprehend a simple fact like the sea is lethal.
Road across Dartmoor was closed for hours because 2 bikers seem to have tried to do an impression of the LHC.
Parts of the county are on fire for the second day because some moron didn't dispose of a barbecue correctly.
They wonder why people in tourist areas have been asking for a distance limit on travelling for "exercise."
Azreal13 wrote: Jesus Christ the local news is a litany of stupid.
In 3 separate incidents 2 people have drowned and six surfers rescued (3 sent to hospital) despite warnings not to enter the ocean because there's currently no lifeguards on duty.
Despite that, retired lifeguards and other semi-qualified people have ended up risking their necks because people are too dumb to comprehend a simple fact like the sea is lethal.
Road across Dartmoor was closed for hours because 2 bikers seem to have tried to do an impression of the LHC.
Parts of the county are on fire for the second day because some moron didn't dispose of a barbecue correctly.
They wonder why people in tourist areas have been asking for a distance limit on travelling for "exercise."
sort of glad my intertube intake is limited to whatever the 360 can manage and fb on the kindle but its indeed a shambles in the shire at the mo
It's not that he has made these trips. Those by themselves might be excusable for any individual given the circumstance (although those are arguably circumspect).
It's the utter spinelessness and failure to hold to account by the rest of Gov. The rules around lockdown are already all over the place, and how many people will have seen that and said "well if he can do it so can I?" And will now be taking even less heed of the current situation than they already are.
I feel so sorry for people who have suffered loss through these months and then had a slap to the face in this manner - comments from people who were unable to attend the bedside of dying relatives. Of who could not attend funerals or give personal comfort to other family members. And he has the gall to sit and shrug as though he has done nothing wrong? It makes me so fething angry.
how many people will have seen that and said "well if he can do it so can I?"
I've seen that rolled out a lot today, but the reality is that anyone who was being diligent will likely be continuing to do so, and if it comes up at all it will be to justify behaviour by those who would have found some other reason to justify the behaviour they were going to do anyway.
The sub group of people who were adhering to the rules that throw up their hands and declare feth it solely because one public figure (and not the first, let's not forget) arguably broke some guidelines has got to be microscopic.
how many people will have seen that and said "well if he can do it so can I?"
I've seen that rolled out a lot today, but the reality is that anyone who was being diligent will likely be continuing to do so, and if it comes up at all it will be to justify behaviour by those who would have found some other reason to justify the behaviour they were going to do anyway.
The sub group of people who were adhering to the rules that throw up their hands and declare feth it solely because one public figure (and not the first, let's not forget) arguably broke some guidelines has got to be microscopic.
Two other public figures. Both of whom fell on their sword.
Quite honestly, I'm rather impressed with the precautions most people are taking.
My FLGS opened up, but to limited numbers. People are even allowed to game in the back, but no more than 4 people max and they have to call in ahead of time and it's preferred they wear a mask. A lot of local businesses are re-opening but exercising caution and placing reasonable limitations.
I think it's a good thing, people can make some reasonable choices and function without the local governments trying to lock the place down like we just got the Rage Virus from 28 Days Later but with extra snot and boogers.
(Wait- seriously, do you UK guys call 'boogers' "Bogeys"?)
Anyway, I think the problem is there are people who are getting into a full-blown panic. People who just freak the hell out at the idea of someone having a couple of friends over at his house for a cookout. I mean, I get it- it's probably really nice to sit around and collect a stimulus check and not work. But right now a lot of small local businesses (including my FLGS that I do part-time weekend work) are not sure if they'll make it through another month of full-blown quarantine.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Quite honestly, I'm rather impressed with the precautions most people are taking.
My FLGS opened up, but to limited numbers. People are even allowed to game in the back, but no more than 4 people max and they have to call in ahead of time and it's preferred they wear a mask. A lot of local businesses are re-opening but exercising caution and placing reasonable limitations.
I think it's a good thing, people can make some reasonable choices and function without the local governments trying to lock the place down like we just got the Rage Virus from 28 Days Later but with extra snot and boogers.
(Wait- seriously, do you UK guys call 'boogers' "Bogeys"?)
Anyway, I think the problem is there are people who are getting into a full-blown panic. People who just freak the hell out at the idea of someone having a couple of friends over at his house for a cookout. I mean, I get it- it's probably really nice to sit around and collect a stimulus check and not work. But right now a lot of small local businesses (including my FLGS that I do part-time weekend work) are not sure if they'll make it through another month of full-blown quarantine.
Azreal13 wrote: It looks like there's a chance that a vaccine could go the same way as SARS and MERS vaccines, ie the disease burns out before work is finished..
Yeah it's dissapearing now due to lockdown. However lockdown isn't going to be infinite so the moment it's lifted the cases starts to go up. First slow, then fast as the R number goes up.
Problem with viruses is without vaccines you can't get completely rid of it. With lockdown you can keep numbers down but do you think lockdown will be held 50 years? 100? 200?
I'm not worried about catching it outside. Pretty much at all.
Yes, the wind certainly does disperse it.
Disperse - distribute or spread over a wide area.
And dilute. I should have let's said for clarity. I imagine theres a law similar to the inverse square applied to the dispersal of droplets by wind.
Sure sure, that is definitely how that works when large groups of people rush out to the beaches and parks for reopening. All of their breath and spit will be diluted by the wind. I would definitely add "do not stand down wind" to the social distancing list.
This reopening is going to be both hilarious and tragic for people.....
Azreal13 wrote: It looks like there's a chance that a vaccine could go the same way as SARS and MERS vaccines, ie the disease burns out before work is finished..
Yeah it's dissapearing now due to lockdown. However lockdown isn't going to be infinite so the moment it's lifted the cases starts to go up. First slow, then fast as the R number goes up.
Problem with viruses is without vaccines you can't get completely rid of it. With lockdown you can keep numbers down but do you think lockdown will be held 50 years? 100? 200?
I'm not worried about catching it outside. Pretty much at all.
Yes, the wind certainly does disperse it.
Disperse - distribute or spread over a wide area.
And dilute. I should have let's said for clarity. I imagine theres a law similar to the inverse square applied to the dispersal of droplets by wind.
Sure sure, that is definitely how that works when large groups of people rush out to the beaches and parks for reopening. All of their breath and spit will be diluted by the wind. I would definitely add "do not stand down wind" to the social distancing list.
This reopening is going to be both hilarious and tragic for people.....
Do not stand down wind.. of what/whom? anyone? because thats basically impossible unless you're in a remote area with few other people. I dont even know why I'm explaining. did you read the links?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I mean, I get it- it's probably really nice to sit around and collect a stimulus check and not work.
I strongly suspect that this scenario doesn't exist outside of people's imaginations, particularly considering that for anyone not working, that single $1200 stimulus check (equating to about a single month of Federal minimum wage pay) is loooooooooong gone and they'll be feeling the same intense financial pressures as anyone else...
Azreal13 wrote: It looks like there's a chance that a vaccine could go the same way as SARS and MERS vaccines, ie the disease burns out before work is finished..
Yeah it's dissapearing now due to lockdown. However lockdown isn't going to be infinite so the moment it's lifted the cases starts to go up. First slow, then fast as the R number goes up.
Problem with viruses is without vaccines you can't get completely rid of it. With lockdown you can keep numbers down but do you think lockdown will be held 50 years? 100? 200?
I'm not worried about catching it outside. Pretty much at all.
Yes, the wind certainly does disperse it.
Disperse - distribute or spread over a wide area.
And dilute. I should have let's said for clarity. I imagine theres a law similar to the inverse square applied to the dispersal of droplets by wind.
Sure sure, that is definitely how that works when large groups of people rush out to the beaches and parks for reopening. All of their breath and spit will be diluted by the wind. I would definitely add "do not stand down wind" to the social distancing list.
This reopening is going to be both hilarious and tragic for people.....
Do not stand down wind.. of what/whom? anyone? because thats basically impossible unless you're in a remote area with few other people. I dont even know why I'm explaining. did you read the links?
From people. How are you not getting this? I am telling you this is going to be impossible outdoors. Even in the link it says that outdoors is not safe, people should not consider it safe, and the only way it is going to work is by keeping up extreme social distancing while outside. I read the links.
“You can go to the beach, you can go to the park, and it can be safe,” he said. “It’s just you have to be cognizant of the fact that the virus is there.” It is there, it is around. This is more about people willing to take the risk of getting sick by going outside than it being SAFE to go outside. It is still not safe to go outside, because people are there.
Anyway, I think the problem is there are people who are getting into a full-blown panic. People who just freak the hell out at the idea of someone having a couple of friends over at his house for a cookout. I mean, I get it- it's probably really nice to sit around and collect a stimulus check and not work. But right now a lot of small local businesses (including my FLGS that I do part-time weekend work) are not sure if they'll make it through another month of full-blown quarantine.
You may be having fun sitting at home collecting that stimulus check, but I work for a local mom and pop restaurant. My hours got increased and we have been begging them to hire more people so we can stop working 6-7 days a week. We are not having any issues with business at all. In a town of 5000 people. Maybe the issue is the type of business they are.
I see that in order to make one of his key messages, that not only was he an early, enthusiastic advocate of lockdown, but that he predicted Covid last year, Cummings edited two old blog posts, but was apparently unaware that's very easy to demonstrate. So that's the key figure behind lockdown messaging not only breaking his own rules, but seeking to justify it by lying about how he was even more instrumental (and prescient!) in bringing those rules about.
Whichever position you take on the political aspects, there's no question that this farce is seriously damaging for public trust in coronavirus policy. That said, I don't think it'll have much of an effect. His behaviour will have little effect on the people who don't like him, and essentially all his defenders, who were pretty much all fans already, already thought lockdown was unnecessary and were doing exactly the same RAW loophole grandstanding.
So far coronaviridae associated with the influenza like-like illness display seasonal circulation and like other agents such as rhinoviridae and influenza are causes of influenza-like illness. Different types of coronaviruses coexist in most winter seasons in countries such as the UK, and the current outbreak is associated with latitude and COVID deaths and cases in the Northern Hemisphere. However, MERs is mainly associated with contacts with camels and SARs 2002-03 has not been identified since.
Higher temperatures likely affect the survival of SARs-CoV-2. As a consequence, those countries with higher temperature and higher relative humidity might have found it easier to manage the outbreak for this reason. However, while most major outbreaks have appeared within a narrow temperature band there have not been similar outbreaks in some countries with the same temperature bands. The reasons for this disparity are not currently clear.
COVID – ‘wave’ or sporadic outbreaks?
The theory of pandemics is murky. The best known is the cyclical theory based on influenza occurrence. This foresees cycles of infection when the natural immunity to the previous agent dies out with the passing away of survivors. This cycle up until recently was thought to span 70 years approximately. However, this theory does not fit all the evidence and the rise of other microbiological agents such as coronaviridae imposes a radical rethink and proper investigation of the ecology of the lesser-known respiratory agents.
The disappearance of a respiratory virus for decades with a sudden reappearance, in some cases virtually unchanged requires serious investigation. Meanwhile, the chaotic nature of epidemics and their consequent disruption should lead us to be cautious about forecasting the future.
We do not know for certain whether COVID will recur in phases, or sporadic outbreaks or disappear altogether.
Conclusion
Making absolute statements of certainty about ‘ second waves’ is unwise, given the current substantial uncertainties and novelty of the evidence. As we cannot see the future and our understanding of this new agent is in its infancy we think preparedness planning should be inspired by robust surveillance, the flexibility of response and rigid separation of suspected or confirmed cases. These measures should stand for all serious outbreaks of respiratory illness.
Johnson says he has had to start wearing glasses (which he's been wearing frequently in photos since 2014) since being ill and Michael Gove has told LBC toast that he's driven to test his eyesight in the past so this is the post-truth, anything-to-save-the-boss world in which we're trying to manage a pandemic.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Quite honestly, I'm rather impressed with the precautions most people are taking.
My FLGS opened up, but to limited numbers. People are even allowed to game in the back, but no more than 4 people max and they have to call in ahead of time and it's preferred they wear a mask. A lot of local businesses are re-opening but exercising caution and placing reasonable limitations.
I think it's a good thing, people can make some reasonable choices and function without the local governments trying to lock the place down like we just got the Rage Virus from 28 Days Later but with extra snot and boogers.
(Wait- seriously, do you UK guys call 'boogers' "Bogeys"?)
Anyway, I think the problem is there are people who are getting into a full-blown panic. People who just freak the hell out at the idea of someone having a couple of friends over at his house for a cookout. I mean, I get it- it's probably really nice to sit around and collect a stimulus check and not work. But right now a lot of small local businesses (including my FLGS that I do part-time weekend work) are not sure if they'll make it through another month of full-blown quarantine.
Then we should be demanding the govt do more to prevent the closure of businesses. Such as a rent and utilities freeze and NOT prematurely opening.
Sometimes, people need to be told what to do for their own, yeh everyone in Dakka might do what is well, but most won't.
I took the family to Nettlebed for a long walk yesterday. It was their first time in the car for 8 or 9 weeks, as I've been doing all the big weekly supermarket runs.
There were a lot of cars parked in the village. Onviously lots of people had the same idea. However, once we got into the woods, it was quite rare to meet people and it was easy to get 2 metres apart when we did.
I suppose the difference on a beach is that you might spend a long time in moderately close proximity to other people. The 2m distance thing is based on coughing droplets, not virus particles. The particles can drift a lot farther before they fall to the ground. If you're 3m from someone else for an hour, maybe you get a lot of exposure.
In other virus related news, the research on Hydroxyquinoline (spel?) has showed it doubles the death rate from the virus.
Kilkrazy wrote: I took the family to Nettlebed for a long walk yesterday. It was their first time in the car for 8 or 9 weeks, as I've been doing all the big weekly supermarket runs.
There were a lot of cars parked in the village. Onviously lots of people had the same idea. However, once we got into the woods, it was quite rare to meet people and it was easy to get 2 metres apart when we did.
I suppose the difference on a beach is that you might spend a long time in moderately close proximity to other people. The 2m distance thing is based on coughing droplets, not virus particles. The particles can drift a lot farther before they fall to the ground. If you're 3m from someone else for an hour, maybe you get a lot of exposure.
In other virus related news, the research on Hydroxyquinoline (spel?) has showed it doubles the death rate from the virus.
Did you go to the warburg nature reserve? thats a nice walk.
Kilkrazy wrote: I took the family to Nettlebed for a long walk yesterday. It was their first time in the car for 8 or 9 weeks, as I've been doing all the big weekly supermarket runs.
There were a lot of cars parked in the village. Onviously lots of people had the same idea. However, once we got into the woods, it was quite rare to meet people and it was easy to get 2 metres apart when we did.
I suppose the difference on a beach is that you might spend a long time in moderately close proximity to other people. The 2m distance thing is based on coughing droplets, not virus particles. The particles can drift a lot farther before they fall to the ground. If you're 3m from someone else for an hour, maybe you get a lot of exposure.
In other virus related news, the research on Hydroxyquinoline (spel?) has showed it doubles the death rate from the virus.
You mean that so called wonder cure was a death trap all along? I’m shocked! Shocked!
Kilkrazy wrote: I took the family to Nettlebed for a long walk yesterday. It was their first time in the car for 8 or 9 weeks, as I've been doing all the big weekly supermarket runs.
There were a lot of cars parked in the village. Onviously lots of people had the same idea. However, once we got into the woods, it was quite rare to meet people and it was easy to get 2 metres apart when we did.
I suppose the difference on a beach is that you might spend a long time in moderately close proximity to other people. The 2m distance thing is based on coughing droplets, not virus particles. The particles can drift a lot farther before they fall to the ground. If you're 3m from someone else for an hour, maybe you get a lot of exposure.
In other virus related news, the research on Hydroxyquinoline (spel?) has showed it doubles the death rate from the virus.
You mean that so called wonder cure was a death trap all along? I’m shocked! Shocked!
...well, not that shocked.
And yet I bet that the person who was pushing that lie is going to continue to claim that he is taking it every day.
I’m trying to enjoy the sun myself, out on the balcony. Getting drunk alone, yay.
Before that though, I was around at a chippy that has reopened with some restrictions. Good to have some unhealthy food again...but there’s always that one donkey-cave, and they’re always the same, who just has to make things difficult.
Breaking social distancing and getting pissy about it when called out on it, but even before all this happened they’d be problematic...standing blocking the doorway, taking forever to get their money out...walking around aimless invading your personal space, talking at the top of their lungs...fething donkey-caves.
I don’t think it’s unique to here but we are inundated with deafening overgrown toddlers.
Kilkrazy wrote: @Queen_Anne's_Revenge, we walked around in the woods between Nettlebed and Catslip. There are some right posh houses there my wife likes to ogle.
I like to do that too on my rounds!
The Malone era of the city especially, were all the literal mansions are.
Vaktathi wrote: I strongly suspect that this scenario doesn't exist outside of people's imaginations, particularly considering that for anyone not working, that single $1200 stimulus check (equating to about a single month of Federal minimum wage pay) is loooooooooong gone and they'll be feeling the same intense financial pressures as anyone else...
I could take you for a drive. I'll sing that song from Willy Wonka about Imagination when I introduce you to some lovely specimens of underachievement.
And you're not wrong about it drying up. Some of the less-motivated persons, however, are more content to just get 'free money' and make it stretch rather than go back to work (where they'd earn more, but, you know, have to work). [
quote=Dreadwinter 784835 10809116 eeb29740e8e9bcf14dc26c2fff8cca81.png]You may be having fun sitting at home collecting that stimulus check, but I work for a local mom and pop restaurant. My hours got increased and we have been begging them to hire more people so we can stop working 6-7 days a week. We are not having any issues with business at all. In a town of 5000 people. Maybe the issue is the type of business they are.
I'm not sitting at home. I'm quite busy, on a salary, and have seen zero impacts to my income. Glad your spot is doing good, though- honestly.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then we should be demanding the govt do more to prevent the closure of businesses. Such as a rent and utilities freeze and NOT prematurely opening.
That costs money. Spoiler: The government doesn't have money to do this- well, they do. It's YOUR money. And it'll come back and bite you sooner than you think.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sometimes, people need to be told what to do for their own, yeh everyone in Dakka might do what is well, but most won't.
And those that refuse to listen, I'm sure there's a train or some kind of re-education camp they can be sent to (I'm joking). Of course a lot of people are stupid. And a lot of people refuse to believe it.
Honestly, I might be an awful person... but I'd say the stupid people that end up with the virus... well, I'm not particularly concerned about them, specifically. Maybe those around them, but less so them. Population could use a little housekeeping.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And yet I bet that the person who was pushing that lie is going to continue to claim that he is taking it every day.
As long as it's a valid excuse to poison your spouse...
The spike is almost back down to regular average levels.
I guess it's all relative, "almost" back is 3,081 more excess deaths than normal. Around a 3rd more than normal. This data also has a note to point out only 88 deaths were recorded on the final day of the period due to it being a bank holiday. (Friday 1st had 2,950 deaths).
Is 38.7% above the 5-year average 'almost regular levels'?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Weston General Hospital, in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, stopped accepting A&E patients yesterday morning, stating that '“This is a precautionary measure in order to maintain the safety of staff and patients in response to the high number of patients with coronavirus in the hospital'.
Bank Holiday deaths will be registered today, as they are done by phone. Watch for a spike in numbers next week.
I had heard from a local to W-S-M that the seafront was heaving, and the usual A&E cases were rolling in. With few facilites open, and the hospital having to close the doors, it must have been horrible.
I guess I'm a more 'glass half full' sort of guy. theyre heading in the right direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skinnereal wrote: Bank Holiday deaths will be registered today, as they are done by phone. Watch for a spike in numbers next week.
I had heard from a local to W-S-M that the seafront was heaving, and the usual A&E cases were rolling in. With few facilites open, and the hospital having to close the doors, it must have been horrible.
The situation at Weston is alarming. my wife has some family there.
My church is the Progressive church in town, and many members are asking it to be reopened even though we have a drive-in service, and decent quality video services.
I wouldn't be too wound up about it, except for the Fox News and Facebook conspiracy theories being used to justify the re-opening. I was pretty surprised to hear it from my fellow "progressive" church members.
It is hard to believe someone is going to take basic precautions seriously when they are spouting "Plandemic" and "Bill Gates" related nonsense.
Meanwhile, in the town I used to live in; their local plant exploded with cases after opening up the state.
A COVID-19 outbreak among 81 workers at Viracon’s architectural glass factory caused the Owatonna plant to close down for deep-cleaning for two days last week, health officials said.
The plant has the fourth largest outbreak among manufacturers in Minnesota, behind meat-processing facilities JBS in Worthington, Jennie-O Turkey Store in Willmar and Melrose, and Pilgrim’s Pride in Cold Spring, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) said.
The company said it has been following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocols since it had its first case.
Viracon spokesman Jeffrey Matthews said more than the 81 workers were sent home on paid leave after detailed contact tracing revealed possible exposure. Some of the quarantined workers have begun to return to work, he said.
The 2 million-square-foot factory has 1,500 employees covering multiple shifts, Matthews said, adding that workers are naturally spread out.
Since learning of sick workers, the company also is taking the temperatures of all factory workers before they enter the Owatonna plant, said Jeff Huebschen, vice president of investor relations for parent company Apogee Enterprises, in an e-mail.
“In recent weeks there has been an increase in positive COVID-19 cases in the communities surrounding our Viracon factory in Owatonna, and in our workforce which comes from those communities,” Huebschen said. “We have contact-traced all employees with symptoms and based on employee interviews, we do not believe the virus is being transmitted at Viracon.”
Easy E wrote: It is hard to believe someone is going to take basic precautions seriously when they are spouting "Plandemic" and "Bill Gates" related nonsense.
It's hard to believe you'll call it complete nonsense if you've actually looked into it.
No, it's not a 'conspiracy'. The virus is real and all that.
But there's some interesting speculation on who is in someone's pocket if you follow the money and look at a few odd coincidences.
But hey, do what you wanna do and believe what you want. Eventually one day I'll be shocked to find out that at least one of these 'nonsense' things dismissed by the mainstream news media is actually nonsense. Nowadays, if I don't dig deeper it's because I'm actually afraid of what I might find.
Skinnereal wrote: I had heard from a local to W-S-M that the seafront was heaving, and the usual A&E cases were rolling in. With few facilites open, and the hospital having to close the doors, it must have been horrible.
The situation at Weston is alarming. my wife has some family there.
And yet...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: [The different] Place was absolutely rammed. People swimming and sunbathing, yet still we managed to maintain distance from people, barring the odd kid splashing past or people passing by. Short encounters that last no more than a second or two. This is why I dont see the issue with outdoor activity.
I'm not worried about catching it outside. Pretty much at all.
That's not the problem. The NHS cannot cope with Civid19 and the day-to-day services.
Skinnereal wrote: Bank Holiday deaths will be registered today, as they are done by phone. Watch for a spike in numbers next week.
I had heard from a local to W-S-M that the seafront was heaving, and the usual A&E cases were rolling in. With few facilites open, and the hospital having to close the doors, it must have been horrible.
The situation at Weston is alarming. my wife has some family there.
Now consider that kind of situation country-wide and you might understand why the lockdown was required to be as extensive and draconian as it is/was.
Sorry, yeah I guess all those people in Weston hospital must be super relieved that police have been harassing people and policing their shopping based on nonsense legislation. have a word.
It's probably torpedoed tons of fines handed out for breaking lockdown, so I imagine you're glad it's hit the news hard for that reason, if nothing else?
Hancock has just said that yes, they may well have to revisit and revise fines handed out to people traveling.
Literally retrospectively changing legal penalties to protect an advisor.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Sorry, yeah I guess all those people in Weston hospital must be super relieved that police have been harassing people and policing their shopping based on nonsense legislation. have a word.
So you get a choice
1) Hospital overloaded
2) Lockdown
Right now there's not really anything inbetween the two. You've already admitted that you're scared and concerned about the hospital situation and that's AFTER lockdown with less cases of corona and with only a modest reprisal of holidaymakers. Imagine full on holiday makers plus the overseas portion plus the corona without lockdown all at once.
So now we need to lockdown so people don't accidentally get hurt? The fact that the hospital has a large number of cases is alarming, but if people need medical care they will have to go elsewhere. The gov have already said sunbathing is now 'legal.' what are you going to do?
3. CNN using footage from an overloaded hospital in Italy and claiming it's New York
I know, not you guys' place.
But, things are starting to get very interesting. I'm still watching and taking in things bit by bit. And no, I don't think the absolutes you named are the only options.
It's probably torpedoed tons of fines handed out for breaking lockdown, so I imagine you're glad it's hit the news hard for that reason, if nothing else?
Hancock has just said that yes, they may well have to revisit and revise fines handed out to people traveling.
Literally retrospectively changing legal penalties to protect an advisor.
To be fair, given the haste it was written and implemented, the uneven enforcement and the wooly nature of the legislation, this was always going to happen, it's just by forcing an MP to mention it now it stokes the fire that but more.
You will have seen the run-ragged staff at the hospitals. Space is one thing. Having half-dead NHS staff treat g you is not a good thing.
Of course not, but that's the only hospital, or one of very few that is in that state. Why, I don't know, but I'd imagine it being down to Weston having an elderly, and like other seaside towns, a poorer population.
It's probably torpedoed tons of fines handed out for breaking lockdown, so I imagine you're glad it's hit the news hard for that reason, if nothing else?
Hancock has just said that yes, they may well have to revisit and revise fines handed out to people traveling.
Literally retrospectively changing legal penalties to protect an advisor.
To be fair, given the haste it was written and implemented, the uneven enforcement and the wooly nature of the legislation, this was always going to happen, it's just by forcing an MP to mention it now it stokes the fire that but more.
There would have been some challenged and overturned, but few would have had the money to pursue it. A slim chance of forgiveness several years down the line. There absolutely would not have been a dismissal like is now on the cards.
It's probably torpedoed tons of fines handed out for breaking lockdown, so I imagine you're glad it's hit the news hard for that reason, if nothing else?
Hancock has just said that yes, they may well have to revisit and revise fines handed out to people traveling.
Literally retrospectively changing legal penalties to protect an advisor.
To be fair, given the haste it was written and implemented, the uneven enforcement and the wooly nature of the legislation, this was always going to happen, it's just by forcing an MP to mention it now it stokes the fire that but more.
There would have been some challenged and overturned, but few would have had the money to pursue it. A slim chance of forgiveness several years down the line. There absolutely would not have been a dismissal like is now on the cards.
You don't need loads of money to pursue a FPN dude, it isn't something you'll need to engage a QC for.
It typically goes in front of the local magistrate and you don't even need to be there, let alone a solicitor.
It's probably torpedoed tons of fines handed out for breaking lockdown, so I imagine you're glad it's hit the news hard for that reason, if nothing else?
Hancock has just said that yes, they may well have to revisit and revise fines handed out to people traveling.
Literally retrospectively changing legal penalties to protect an advisor.
To be fair, given the haste it was written and implemented, the uneven enforcement and the wooly nature of the legislation, this was always going to happen, it's just by forcing an MP to mention it now it stokes the fire that but more.
There would have been some challenged and overturned, but few would have had the money to pursue it. A slim chance of forgiveness several years down the line. There absolutely would not have been a dismissal like is now on the cards.
You don't need loads of money to pursue a FPN dude, it isn't something you'll need to engage a QC for.
It typically goes in front of the local magistrate and you don't even need to be there, let alone a solicitor.
Depends on the offence, but in many cases you are basically guaranteed to be found at fault and issued with a significantly increased fine if you haven't been represented. Insofar as I'm aware, lockdown fines haven't been tested in court yet. Of course, the number of people who even challenge any FPN that isn't a speeding fine is vanishingly small. That's why they work.
This has absolutely saved loads of people money. And decided tomorrows headlines when I imagine many papers were struggling to find their Cummings story. Derailing Cummings' own lockdown messaging further.
So much for the Prince of Predicting Public Opinion.
Depends on the offence, but in many cases you are basically guaranteed to be found at fault and issued with a significantly increased fine if you haven't been represented.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm not sure about a second wave. again, I'm no virologist but those predictions seem to have a basis in influenza, not coronaviruses.
So far coronaviridae associated with the influenza like-like illness display seasonal circulation and like other agents such as rhinoviridae and influenza are causes of influenza-like illness. Different types of coronaviruses coexist in most winter seasons in countries such as the UK, and the current outbreak is associated with latitude and COVID deaths and cases in the Northern Hemisphere. However, MERs is mainly associated with contacts with camels and SARs 2002-03 has not been identified since.
Higher temperatures likely affect the survival of SARs-CoV-2. As a consequence, those countries with higher temperature and higher relative humidity might have found it easier to manage the outbreak for this reason. However, while most major outbreaks have appeared within a narrow temperature band there have not been similar outbreaks in some countries with the same temperature bands. The reasons for this disparity are not currently clear.
COVID – ‘wave’ or sporadic outbreaks?
The theory of pandemics is murky. The best known is the cyclical theory based on influenza occurrence. This foresees cycles of infection when the natural immunity to the previous agent dies out with the passing away of survivors. This cycle up until recently was thought to span 70 years approximately. However, this theory does not fit all the evidence and the rise of other microbiological agents such as coronaviridae imposes a radical rethink and proper investigation of the ecology of the lesser-known respiratory agents.
The disappearance of a respiratory virus for decades with a sudden reappearance, in some cases virtually unchanged requires serious investigation. Meanwhile, the chaotic nature of epidemics and their consequent disruption should lead us to be cautious about forecasting the future.
We do not know for certain whether COVID will recur in phases, or sporadic outbreaks or disappear altogether.
Conclusion
Making absolute statements of certainty about ‘ second waves’ is unwise, given the current substantial uncertainties and novelty of the evidence. As we cannot see the future and our understanding of this new agent is in its infancy we think preparedness planning should be inspired by robust surveillance, the flexibility of response and rigid separation of suspected or confirmed cases. These measures should stand for all serious outbreaks of respiratory illness.
No one seems to have a coherent agreement on whether its likely to be seasonal or not. So I gues all we can do is wait out.
Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.
Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.
So why are people talking about it coming back in winter? I agree. it doesnt seem seasonal. but people keep talking about winter spikes.
Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.
So why are people talking about it coming back in winter? I agree. it doesnt seem seasonal. but people keep talking about winter spikes.
Probably because winter brings less sunlight and colder weather. In general it debilitates people a bit more than summer. So any infection has a higher chance of taking hold.
Plus it gets cold so people want to spend more time indoors, which means if you've relaxed lockdowns there's going to be a higher percentage of people wanting to be indoors with the option to be indoors. So the infection gets even more chance to spread around.
In germany I hear they are making vaccine compulsory, if you don't take it you don't get a "pass" and that pass is needed to apply for jobs and other things. Other countries will probably do the same. Also parents will face fines if they don't let their children take the vaccine. Germany already do this with the measles vaccine in regards to school kids. We aren't sure yet if there's any plans to forcibly administer e.g allow police to use force to remove people from their homes etc, which some people are calling for.
Probably because winter brings less sunlight and colder weather. In general it debilitates people a bit more than summer. So any infection has a higher chance of taking hold.
Plus it gets cold so people want to spend more time indoors, which means if you've relaxed lockdowns there's going to be a higher percentage of people wanting to be indoors with the option to be indoors. So the infection gets even more chance to spread around.
Is that not what seasonal is? If it isn't then what are the characteristics of a seasonal disease?
The Regulator wrote: In germany I hear they are making vaccine compulsory, if you don't take it you don't get a "pass" and that pass is needed to apply for jobs and other things. Other countries will probably do the same. Also parents will face fines if they don't let their children take the vaccine. Germany already do this with the measles vaccine in regards to school kids. We aren't sure yet if there's any plans to forcibly administer e.g allow police to use force to remove people from their homes etc, which some people are calling for.
Source? Because this sounds like literal fake news.
I don't see the problem of making them compulsory.
You want to be part of modern society? Fine, do when needs to be done.
You wanna not take the vaccine, also fine, have fun living off the grid because no one will hire you
My job required me to have all my vaccines up to date. I don't see a problem.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I don't see the problem of making them compulsory.
You want to be part of modern society? Fine, do when needs to be done.
You wanna not take the vaccine, also fine, have fun living off the grid because no one will hire you
My job required me to have all my vaccines up to date. I don't see a problem.
Tbf with the caveat that you don't have to if you Fall under groups with expectable adverse effects from it (Chemo patients, etc.)
hotsauceman1 wrote: I don't see the problem of making them compulsory.
You want to be part of modern society? Fine, do when needs to be done.
You wanna not take the vaccine, also fine, have fun living off the grid because no one will hire you
My job required me to have all my vaccines up to date. I don't see a problem.
You get that what you're saying isn't "making them compulsory" right?
What you're describing is strongly encouraging people to do so by limiting their civil freedoms if they choose not to, while also allowing them the right to accept the limitations and not have a vaccine.
Compulsory vaccination could ultimately look like what the Regulator (somewhat dubiously) alluded to which would be physically restrained while the vaccine was administered against your will.
I'd rather not have any aspect of bodily autonomy mandated by government, barring voluntary situations of people's choosing(I have to have most vaccines for work) anthrax was optional.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'd rather not have any aspect of bodily autonomy mandated by government, barring voluntary situations of people's choosing(I have to have most vaccines for work) anthrax was optional.
But you are fine when a private entity you have even less power over Mandates something Like that?
But yes, they can have a list of vaccines required for the job. Applicants can decide whether they want to take them. If they don't, they're ineligible. That's the companies right. I'd rather have that than give the government any arbitrary say over people's bodily autonomy.
But yes, they can have a list of vaccines required for the job. Applicants can decide whether they want to take them. If they don't, they're ineligible. That's the companies right. I'd rather have that than give the government any arbitrary say over people's bodily autonomy.
Sorry to say this but ,if any Institution in a Country/society has any right over the Body of it's people then that has to be the Institution with the monopoly of force , legitimizing that via structures and avoidance Of abuse/ accountability and trust , and NOT some random company..
Well, I respectfully disagree. I believe in limited government as far as reasonably practicable.
I think giving them that power would be a dangerous precedent.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well, I respectfully disagree. I believe in limited government as far as reasonably practicable.
I think giving them that power would be a dangerous precedent.
But we're digressing somewhat.
The government has by virtue of existing allready that power.
The limiting factor comes with the fact that we can hold it actually acountable and decide therefore ultimately if it is legitimate in ruling over us or not.
Unlike companies, especially monopolistic ones Like walmart or Amazon or google for which we allready can See why they shouldn't period get any and all say in such matters
Edit. Actually, I'm wrong. The government here just made organ donation mandatory for all adults with an opt out scheme. Which I'm also opposed to.
Eh its a casual way to boost organ donations, especially since a lot of potentially willing donors won't even consider the question until they are at death's door; by which point their mind set might not be in the right place to agree or they might be incapable of giving a response. Shifting it from automatic refusal to acceptance basically releases a lot of organs that would likely have entered the system anyway if people were more forward thinking about such matters. Making it opt out works better for society in general; you can freely opt out on any grounds you want (religious, moral, just don't want too etc...)
Edit. Actually, I'm wrong. The government here just made organ donation mandatory for all adults with an opt out scheme. Which I'm also opposed to.
Eh its a casual way to boost organ donations, especially since a lot of potentially willing donors won't even consider the question until they are at death's door; by which point their mind set might not be in the right place to agree or they might be incapable of giving a response. Shifting it from automatic refusal to acceptance basically releases a lot of organs that would likely have entered the system anyway if people were more forward thinking about such matters. Making it opt out works better for society in general; you can freely opt out on any grounds you want (religious, moral, just don't want too etc...)
Tbf such decisions and debates even within family rarely show up.
How often did i hear from Families not sure on stopping liveprolonging meassures etc.
And we have it actually good in regards to selfdetermination in the european Context what with Exit etc .
Edit. Actually, I'm wrong. The government here just made organ donation mandatory for all adults with an opt out scheme. Which I'm also opposed to.
Eh its a casual way to boost organ donations, especially since a lot of potentially willing donors won't even consider the question until they are at death's door; by which point their mind set might not be in the right place to agree or they might be incapable of giving a response. Shifting it from automatic refusal to acceptance basically releases a lot of organs that would likely have entered the system anyway if people were more forward thinking about such matters. Making it opt out works better for society in general; you can freely opt out on any grounds you want (religious, moral, just don't want too etc...)
Opt out also works psychologically. A lot of people don't even care too much about it but having to opt in creates a little mental barrier and we tend to stay on the save/default side of such choice where we aren't exactly sure. It is good for society but it feels odd to let them take "parts" off you (I read that people are especially creeped out by the idea of their eyes/cornea being removed). By reversing it (opt out scheme) you essentially make it work for that huge undecided group that tends to stay with the default option while those who actually don't want it get to opt out.
The Regulator wrote: In germany I hear they are making vaccine compulsory, if you don't take it you don't get a "pass" and that pass is needed to apply for jobs and other things. Other countries will probably do the same. Also parents will face fines if they don't let their children take the vaccine. Germany already do this with the measles vaccine in regards to school kids. We aren't sure yet if there's any plans to forcibly administer e.g allow police to use force to remove people from their homes etc, which some people are calling for.
Source? Because this sounds like literal fake news.
Source that the USA Supreme Court have previously allowed compulsory Smallpox vaccination in 1905, rejecting the argument that it infringes on ones civil liberty:
"power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons." - Supreme Court
I agree with Queen Annes Revenge views on this matter. So far the voice of reason.
Yeah, while all this is going awfully offtopic, in an attempt to somewhat bring it back, I notice that a lot of people seem to miss that this was a fairly quickly occurring worldwide outbreak.
A crisis like that is by nature very chaotic at its outset, and if you wait for all the data to come in to decide on a measured response - you're too late. When gak hits the fan, those in charge need to make a decision how to handle it, quickly, and it needs to be clear to everyone. By its very nature, such an initial response cannot be subtle. And obviously once data does start to pour in, modifications to a more measured response can and should be made, but that does not necessarily invalidate the initial response and will take time to work out and implement.
A number of (predominantly) western governments have failed utterly in that respect.
Somewhat more related and in contrast to the British government advisor's ill-advised actions (to put it mildly), our prime minister's mother has died last week; she was 96 and already doing poorly. Our prime minister, to his credit, had not visited her weekly as he used to before the crisis hit for months, although I believe he did visit her on her deathbed (she didn't die of corona), for which I would not fault anybody even if it had been corona. In our case, very much not "do as I say, not as I do".
So yeah, while I disagree with the man vehemently on politics, I have nothing but respect for the way he handled this whole thing from the outset, and for the moral fibre he showed here.
The Regulator wrote: In germany I hear they are making vaccine compulsory, if you don't take it you don't get a "pass" and that pass is needed to apply for jobs and other things. Other countries will probably do the same. Also parents will face fines if they don't let their children take the vaccine. Germany already do this with the measles vaccine in regards to school kids. We aren't sure yet if there's any plans to forcibly administer e.g allow police to use force to remove people from their homes etc, which some people are calling for.
Source? Because this sounds like literal fake news.
Source that the USA Supreme Court have previously allowed compulsory Smallpox vaccination in 1905, rejecting the argument that it infringes on ones civil liberty:
"power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons." - Supreme Court
I agree with Queen Annes Revenge views on this matter. So far the voice of reason.
And none of that addresses the "they'll take your childrenz!" rightwing talking point.
Also nothing in there about jobs or needing the vaccine to be employed.
So other than being about vaccination - which many countries require, what exactly substantiates your rambling?
But yes, they can have a list of vaccines required for the job. Applicants can decide whether they want to take them. If they don't, they're ineligible. That's the companies right. I'd rather have that than give the government any arbitrary say over people's bodily autonomy.
Are you ok with the government enforcing people wearing seatbelts in cars?
While it's all well and good to say 'Let people do their own research, and choose for themselves!' the simple fact is that the vast majority of people don't actually have the ability to do that research effectively. And then we wind up with a bunch of people who saw a YouTube video or an Instagram post claiming that vaccines contain microscopic robots, or give you autism, or are part of a secret plot to wipe out half of the world's population, or have chemicals in them, decide for some inexplicable reason that this is more credible than the advice of actual medical professionals (you know, on account of them all being on the payroll of Big Pharma - I saw it on Twitter, so it must be true!) and make the wrong choice.
Unfortunately, people sometimes need to be protected from their own ignorance, both for their own good and for the good of the people who have to share their living space.
And none of that addresses the "they'll take your childrenz!" rightwing talking point.
Also nothing in there about jobs or needing the vaccine to be employed.
So other than being about vaccination - which many countries require, what exactly substantiates your rambling?
I'm just saying that in Germany a COVID vaccine may become compulsory like measles and face masks already are, and that will most likely be implemented in other parts of europe. I'm sorry that the source isn't good enough I couldn't find the exact article I had read but I'm sure you realise it's not a far-fetched notion.
I won't indulge in an argument regarding a political subject due to the forum rules. You thought it was fake news, and now you know it's possible. Authorities being given the power to do something doesn't necessarily mean they are going to act upon it like some kind of 40k dystopian arbiters, kicking down doors giving them 50ml of the good stuff. Though I have seen people calling for them to have this power.
If you have COVID-19 and are deemed a risk they already have the power to break in to your home and detain you, which is unlikely to happen, but that's not the point. There are a lot of people in this world (hypochondriacs mainly) who are very scared of COVID-19 and think it can kill a healthy person and will push for/accept this.
Forced vaccines is only a small part of the human rights debate, there's also compulsory track and trace is another matter. These are extremely dire times. It's not just the libertarian thing, it's also that people don't trust vaccines or medical experts.
Are you ok with the government enforcing people wearing seatbelts in cars?
Come on Ins that's not the same thing at all. People know the effect of a piece of fabric harnessing their body and can put trust in that. If you don't think that's logical for safety then everyone is going to disagree with you. Injections of liquids that may be deemed as mysterious to an individual is a different matter.
Dreadwinter wrote: Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.
>Implying that any official information out of China is reliable enough to be consider 'evidence'
Dreadwinter wrote: Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.
>Implying that any official information out of China is reliable enough to be consider 'evidence'
To what end would they put out false information about there being more viral cases in their country than there actually is?
insaniak wrote: Unfortunately, people sometimes need to be protected from their own ignorance, both for their own good and for the good of the people who have to share their living space.
So, does this statement come with a Roman salute?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: To what end would they put out false information about there being more viral cases in their country than there actually is?
If you can't figure that out? I... you know what, just stay right where you're at. I'm gonna let you experience this, I won't cheat you out of it.
Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.
insaniak wrote: Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.
Yeah, I think you're missing the point there, Comrade. Not the idea of dealing with a disease via medicine, but rather being authoritarian and the way you said it? Well, let's just say that kind of mindset sure loads up the trains.
What next for health choices? Wanna take away soda, alcohol? Hamburgers?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll help you out a little bit.
I'm a vet. I've been around long enough to have experimental vaccines thrown at me. And long enough to see some of the guys that were around before me, and what some of those 'mandatory medicines' did to them.
Let's just say I'm a little apprehensive.
And I can hide stuff in this weird little pocket near my upper jaw.
insaniak wrote: Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.
Yeah, I think you're missing the point there, Comrade. Not the idea of dealing with a disease via medicine, but rather being authoritarian and the way you said it? Well, let's just say that kind of mindset sure loads up the trains.
What next for health choices? Wanna take away soda, alcohol? Hamburgers?
Yeah, if we're jumping straight to the slippery slope argument - (remember when we gave the vote to women? And then we just couldn't help ourselves, and we gave the vote to dogs, and camels, and lawnmowers?) - then there's really nothing to be gained by continuing this line of discourse.
I also don't recall ever calling for compulsory administration of experimental vaccines.
Ins comes from a good place, but I don't think he understands how serious of a thing injections are. Safety wise it's not comparable to many other things. As somebody who has injected myself (steroids) I can tell you anything put directly into your blood stream without being processed through the liver is highly unnatural. That said, I would be dead if it wasn't for an adrenaline shot during anaphylaxis. Powerful powerful method of effecting ones nervous system,l and DNA alteration. Injections are absolutely no joke.
Indeed. If only there were some sort of professional individual, who could have the knowledge and training to safely administer injections, and perhaps some other professional individuals who could scrutinise medications in order to determine their efficacy and safety.
Alas, such things are the realm of science fiction.
insaniak wrote: Indeed. If only there were some sort of professional individual, who could have the knowledge and training to safely administer injections, and perhaps some other professional individuals who could scrutinise medications in order to determine their efficacy and safety.
Alas, such things are the realm of science fiction.
You know what's crazy? When you see quite a few of these mythical wizards not reaching a consensus.
Are there any examples of vaccines that people were force-administered and where there is documented research proving and outsized harmful effect? Otherwise all I'm seeing is ominously vague hints without anything anyone can actually reference or research themselves.
General vaccination programs have extremely proven safety track records, and I'm not seeing anyone providing evidence to the contrary.
Vaktathi wrote: Are there any examples of vaccines that people were force-administered and where there is documented research proving and outsized harmful effect? Otherwise all I'm seeing is ominously vague hints without anything anyone can actually reference or research themselves.
General vaccination programs have extremely proven safety track records, and I'm not seeing anyone providing evidence to the contrary.
I get it, it's not something you really see as the same and it's probably 'so much different' from your perspective. But I can tell you, it's very uncomfortable as a thought.
The Regulator wrote: Yeah medical experts are always to be trusted. Remember the safe birth control that deformed millions of babies in the 80s.
The point is more that the knowledge of medical experts is a better bet than that of some blogger on the internet.
Sure, they get it wrong sometimes. And when that happens, the appropriate people should absolutely be held to account. But when a treatment to a potentially deadly disease has been subjected to appropriate rigor, refusing to accept that it might be safe, unless you yourself have sufficient medical knowledge to actually make that call with some sort of authority is more than a little crazy.
insaniak wrote: Sure, they get it wrong sometimes. And when that happens, the appropriate people should absolutely be held to account. But when a treatment to a potentially deadly disease has been subjected to appropriate rigor, refusing to accept that it might be safe, unless you yourself have sufficient medical knowledge to actually make that call with some sort of authority is more than a little crazy.
Notice I've never said 'refuse to take it'. But I have a problem just accepting someone's word on it. "Sometimes they get it wrong" isn't very assuring.
"Sometimes" the chick you had unprotected sex with has HIV even though she claimed she was clean. Maybe should have been a bit more cautious is all.
I like to do a little research. And unlike some, I don't take the word of just any blog on the internet. I can assure you that when it comes to verifying sources, and scanning over an article or something of the like, I might be able to spot deceptive language that a shocking number of people just miss. So you can stow the condescending tone.
All I can say is that I've seen people forced to take medicine. It is an unpleasant experience. And the day someone tells me I'm required to for my own good, if I'm not getting a warm and fuzzy- they're welcome to come to my door and try to do the Wu Flu's dirty work if they feel froggy.
There was no condescending tone. Apologies if you read it that way.
My point right back at the start of this tangent was that most people are not equipped to actually perform that sort of research. If you are, then that's great for you. It doesn't change the fact that most aren't. They'll do a google search, and settle on the first article that confirms their worldview.
People with no medical training are, for the most part, simply not in a position to make meaningful decisions as to whether or not a vaccine is safe. That's precisely why other people do this for a living.
Vaktathi wrote: Are there any examples of vaccines that people were force-administered and where there is documented research proving and outsized harmful effect? Otherwise all I'm seeing is ominously vague hints without anything anyone can actually reference or research themselves.
General vaccination programs have extremely proven safety track records, and I'm not seeing anyone providing evidence to the contrary.
I get it, it's not something you really see as the same and it's probably 'so much different' from your perspective. But I can tell you, it's very uncomfortable as a thought.
While I can understand the feeling, at the same time, neither of these items in question are vaccines, mefloquine is a medication (very different from a vaccine) with well known and documented side effects and warnings that certain people should not take it, while pyridostigmine bromide has been given to people in doses exceeding an order of magnitude more than US soldiers were given without seeing Gulf War Syndrome-esque side effects, and even the article you linked notes that there are likely other causes and the link was established only by a single preliminary study. I get the idea you're driving at regarding being forced to take stuff and how that can cause heebie-jeebies, but with regards to vaccines the track record appears to be rather solid and to do the job they need to do, part of that fundamentally involves researching those who do have legitimate medical reasons not to take the vaccine (such as being too young or having a severe allergic reaction or compromised immune system) and in order to provide herd immunity to protect such people there needs to be a near universal adoption among the rest of the population for such programs to be successful.
insaniak wrote: There was no condescending tone. Apologies if you read it that way.
Okay, I'm gonna call B.S. on you right here. You and I both know otherwise. Come on, now. I might say a few things you dislike but don't ever get the idea that I'm an idiot, because only an idiot would genuinely believe this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: While I can understand the feeling, at the same time, neither of these items in question are vaccines, mefloquine is a medication (very different from a vaccine) with well known and documented side effects and warnings that certain people should not take it, while pyridostigmine bromide has been given to people in doses exceeding an order of magnitude more than US soldiers were given without seeing Gulf War Syndrome-esque side effects, and even the article you linked notes that there are likely other causes and the link was established only by a single preliminary study. I get the idea you're driving at regarding being forced to take stuff and how that can cause heebie-jeebies, but with regards to vaccines the track record appears to be rather solid and to do the job they need to do, part of that fundamentally involves researching those who do have legitimate medical reasons not to take the vaccine (such as being too young or having a severe allergic reaction or compromised immune system) and in order to provide herd immunity to protect such people there needs to be a near universal adoption among the rest of the population for such programs to be successful.
It's medicine, one way or another, that I'm putting in my body that's supposed to do things to make me not get sick, that might make things worse.
Call it a vaccine, a medication, and immunization, my dude- I don't give a damn if you call it a Tootsie Pop. The idea is still the same.
insaniak wrote: There was no condescending tone. Apologies if you read it that way.
Okay, I'm gonna call B.S. on you right here. You and I both know otherwise. Come on, now. I might say a few things you dislike but don't ever get the idea that I'm an idiot, because only an idiot would genuinely believe this.
Nope, you're confusing sarcasm, and my continuing incredulity that so many people think they know better than doctors, for condescension. Chalk it up to the written word not adequately conveying tone.
Adeptus you're overreacting a tad he wasn't being condescending hes just putting his argument across.
Whether you believe the vaccine is safe or not, it should still be ones right to deny it.
Probably because winter brings less sunlight and colder weather. In general it debilitates people a bit more than summer. So any infection has a higher chance of taking hold.
Plus it gets cold so people want to spend more time indoors, which means if you've relaxed lockdowns there's going to be a higher percentage of people wanting to be indoors with the option to be indoors. So the infection gets even more chance to spread around.
Is that not what seasonal is? If it isn't then what are the characteristics of a seasonal disease?
That is not what seasonal is. When referring to something like this, seasonal means a season will kill off or impede the the virus in some way. Turns out, Summer is going to be GREAT for the virus because people are going to be outside in close quarters.
Dreadwinter wrote: Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.
>Implying that any official information out of China is reliable enough to be consider 'evidence'
Yeah, I am not listening to China on this one. This was information that came out very early from many different countries. US, Italy, Germany, and UK. Swing and a miss there.
insaniak wrote: Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.
Yeah, I think you're missing the point there, Comrade. Not the idea of dealing with a disease via medicine, but rather being authoritarian and the way you said it? Well, let's just say that kind of mindset sure loads up the trains.
What next for health choices? Wanna take away soda, alcohol? Hamburgers?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll help you out a little bit.
I'm a vet. I've been around long enough to have experimental vaccines thrown at me. And long enough to see some of the guys that were around before me, and what some of those 'mandatory medicines' did to them.
Let's just say I'm a little apprehensive.
And I can hide stuff in this weird little pocket near my upper jaw.
Good man.
Ins comes from a good place, but I don't think he understands how serious of a thing injections are. Safety wise it's not comparable to many other things. As somebody who has injected myself (steroids) I can tell you anything put directly into your blood stream without being processed through the liver is highly unnatural. That said, I would be dead if it wasn't for an adrenaline shot during anaphylaxis. Powerful powerful method of effecting ones nervous system, and DNA alteration. Injections are absolutely no joke. Anyone with a relaxed attitude towards them need to think twice.
So, because you injected recreationaly steroids against all medical advice on the planet(Things that are not safe, you are told are not safe, and it is HIGHLY SUGGESTED that you do not take from almost every single medical expert on the planet), you are now an expert on all things injecting? This would be like a heroin addict telling me that vaccines are bad because look what the heroin did to their body. That is literally the same thing right now. The same level of intelligence. If I need to hit a vein, I'll hit you or the heroin addict up. When I need medical advice, I will go to people who know what they are talking about.
I dunno how strict the firebans are outside of Australia but I think the comparison is there. Yes to an extent the idea of your body, your choice can be upheld. But if you make a reckless choice and burn down half a state or infect a dozen people (who then infect a dozen people) shouldn't you be held accountable? And if it's damn near impossible to hold someone accountable (such as in infections or large reaching incidents) shouldn't restrictions be put in place to force people to act in ways that protect groups they could effect?
Yes an element of scepticism is healthy, and pretty much everything put forward should be peer reviewed and the results made available. But putting forward the idea that anything imposed upon you is purely for a groups direct benefit or another groups detriment is a little unhealthy.
The bitterly cynical anti-authoritarian in me believes people should be allowed to refuse vaccines if they want.
The practical side of me also believes anyone refusing a proven major illness/pandemic vaccine without a medically valid reason should assume full, unsubsidized cost of any medical care related to that refusal, as well as prima facie liability for transmission to others.
insaniak wrote: Edit - removed. Bowing out of this one for the sake of my blood pressure...
Too late buddy muahaha, you asked why its ones right to deny an injection deemed compulsory by an authority in whatever field, whether one believes it to be safe or not.
As QArevenge touched on, its very intrusive a method. It crosses a line for a lot of people. Matter if opinion. You might as well ban smoking and alcohol and junk food if you care about saving lives enough to force injections. You feel me? Some people don't want a nanny state, some do. It's not an argument either of us can win or lose, so I don't blame you for bowing out. In fact, I'll join you!
insaniak wrote: Edit - removed. Bowing out of this one for the sake of my blood pressure...
Too late buddy muahaha, you asked why its ones right to deny an injection deemed compulsory by an authority in whatever field, whether one believes it to be safe or not.
As QArevenge touched on, its very intrusive a method. It crosses a line for a lot of people. Matter if opinion. You might as well ban smoking and alcohol and junk food if you care about saving lives enough to force injections. You feel me? Some people don't want a nanny state, some do. It's not an argument either of us can win or lose, so I don't blame you for bowing out. In fact, I'll join you!
False Equivalency. Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population, only the ones partaking in them. So no, I do not feel you. Your nanny state argument is absurd at best.
insaniak wrote: Nope, you're confusing sarcasm, and my continuing incredulity that so many people think they know better than doctors, for condescension. Chalk it up to the written word not adequately conveying tone.
Then I'll chalk it up to "I had a few words to describe it but I'm pretty sure that they're not gonna make it through the filter and might get some interesting red text behind it."
And to say they think they know better than a doctor, in many cases, is being disingenuous. A lot of times, there's doctors with a different opinion on the matter- and yes, those doctors can be professionals and not some weird crystal-waving doctor.
People say 'listen to the professionals'- okay, when the professionals disagree- which ones do I listen to? The one that the television news man says? The one with the most Youtube videos? The one that looks more like Colonel Sanders (my bet's always on this guy)
Dreadwinter wrote: False Equivalency. Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population, only the ones partaking in them. So no, I do not feel you. Your nanny state argument is absurd at best.
Bye.
Quite a few lawmakers have felt otherwise, and attempted to regulate them to a draconian level. Not sure if you've noticed.
insaniak wrote: Nope, you're confusing sarcasm, and my continuing incredulity that so many people think they know better than doctors, for condescension. Chalk it up to the written word not adequately conveying tone.
Then I'll chalk it up to "I had a few words to describe it but I'm pretty sure that they're not gonna make it through the filter and might get some interesting red text behind it."
And to say they think they know better than a doctor, in many cases, is being disingenuous. A lot of times, there's doctors with a different opinion on the matter- and yes, those doctors can be professionals and not some weird crystal-waving doctor.
People say 'listen to the professionals'- okay, when the professionals disagree- which ones do I listen to? The one that the television news man says? The one with the most Youtube videos? The one that looks more like Colonel Sanders (my bet's always on this guy)
Probably not the ones trying to make a quick buck like the two doctors in California who owned their clinic and had a vested interest in getting more patients or the disgraced epidemiologist whose research was disproven and then stole a bunch of government files and got sent to prison.
I would start by avoiding those two groups or anybody who is clearly getting paid by a third party agency to push an agenda of "REOPEN TO SAVE THE ECONOMY" because that whole line is pretty much crap.
Dreadwinter wrote: I would start by avoiding those two groups or anybody who is clearly getting paid by a third party agency to push an agenda of "REOPEN TO SAVE THE ECONOMY" because that whole line is pretty much crap.
\
>Implying that people without jobs are full of crap
Okay, you've fully demonstrated that any discussion with you would be about as productive and thought-provoking as watching my neighbor's pug curl off a deuce.
WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax
To be fair, use of that drug appears to have been primarily politically driven and was never seriously proposed for widespread application, with extensive warnings about its use and likely ineffectiveness from the moment it was mentioned. Nobody should be linking Hydroxychloroquine use and vaccine efficacy.
WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax
To be fair, use of that drug appears to have been primarily politically driven and was never seriously proposed for widespread application, with extensive warnings about its use and likely ineffectiveness from the moment it was mentioned. Nobody should be linking Hydroxychloroquine use and vaccine efficacy.
Unless they really want to murder their husband and have a strangely suspicious cover story.
The Regulator wrote: Btw Seasonal flu is called seasonal because it mutates every season. Flu vaccines have to be taken every year, SARS may not be any different. Might be a little off with the facts there but that's pretty much the deal.
WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax
insaniak wrote: Edit - removed. Bowing out of this one for the sake of my blood pressure...
Too late buddy muahaha, you asked why its ones right to deny an injection deemed compulsory by an authority in whatever field, whether one believes it to be safe or not.
As QArevenge touched on, its very intrusive a method. It crosses a line for a lot of people. Matter if opinion. You might as well ban smoking and alcohol and junk food if you care about saving lives enough to force injections. You feel me? Some people don't want a nanny state, some do. It's not an argument either of us can win or lose, so I don't blame you for bowing out. In fact, I'll join you!
False Equivalency. Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population, only the ones partaking in them. So no, I do not feel you. Your nanny state argument is absurd at best.
Bye.
Second hand smoke. Drunk drivers.
Hi.
"Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population." It is illegal in most states to smoke in a public building. It is illegal in most states to smoke in a car with your child. It is illegal most states to drink and drive. You really should have just left the thread.
Also, oh my sweet lord do you really believe that about the Flu? Because that is dangerously wrong.
Bloomberg tried to regulate the size of sodas. Because of course, the peasants cannot be trusted with their own health and the proper authorities must intervene.
Dreadwinter wrote: I would start by avoiding those two groups or anybody who is clearly getting paid by a third party agency to push an agenda of "REOPEN TO SAVE THE ECONOMY" because that whole line is pretty much crap.
\
>Implying that people without jobs are full of crap
Okay, you've fully demonstrated that any discussion with you would be about as productive and thought-provoking as watching my neighbor's pug curl off a deuce.
Oh wow, rude. All because I pointed out two groups you should avoid talking to? Aren't you the guy crying about Insaniak being condescending?
Dreadwinter wrote: "Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population." It is illegal in most states to smoke in a public building. It is illegal in most states to smoke in a car with your child. It is illegal most states to drink and drive. You really should have just left the thread.
Also, oh my sweet lord do you really believe that about the Flu? Because that is dangerously wrong.
Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.
The Regulator wrote: WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax
That's actually good case why the anti-vax'ers are stupid. The vaccines don't get to use just like that and instead go through rigorous testing to ensure they are safe and effective for use. If the anti-vax'ers had point they would not go through testing and corona vaxine could be in the streets within month or two. But instead they are being tested carefully.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe. Duh. That's not mark against vaxines but mark against doing rash decisions. If somebody asks why vaccines take so long to get into field hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can be shown why. Don't use something until it's been tested and verified to be a) effective b) safe for use.
Vaccines go through testing.
Anti-vax people are just fools who have zero idea themselves and are just going by youtube video's designed to cause trouble.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.
Finland has done very well in this respect.
Sort of like a Reich Minister of Propaganda, right?
How about we let people figure things out for themselves, and hold them accountable for their decisions. The more you try to smokescreen certain things, the more people get curious. It's called the Streisand Effect.
Because freedom and choice do not occur in a vacuum and ultimately, peoples decisions always affect others.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe.
Because like any drug, it has side effects (AKA 'undesired effects', let's be real about what they are). And this one has already been in use to treat malaria, chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, systemic lupus erythematosus in adults, and rheumatoid arthritis. It's not brand new to the human body, it's just that they aren't sure if it's going to work on COVID-19- hence, they are actually testing it.
It's not some experimental Trioxin container that came out of a sinister black market lab secretly working for the Evil Orange.Some of you folks might need to take a moment and read a few things before stating something that isn't entirely true.
Essentially, the 'threat' with this stuff? Don't take it from some guy off the streets, don't use it at your house. It's a treatment that requires medical professional oversight, in a controlled environment, and like many other drugs there are side effects. It's far from the only drug like this.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.
Finland has done very well in this respect.
Sort of like a Reich Minister of Propaganda, right?
How about we let people figure things out for themselves, and hold them accountable for their decisions. The more you try to smokescreen certain things, the more people get curious. It's called the Streisand Effect.
Lol, hyperbole much adeptus.
Nobody stated censorship, what was meant was to point out common markers of conspiracy theories in Order to make them easier avoided in research.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.
Finland has done very well in this respect.
This. Exalt.
So you are in Support of the Propaganda ministry?/s
Dreadwinter wrote: Because freedom and choice do not occur in a vacuum and ultimately, peoples decisions always affect others.
Sounds like something a failed third-world dictator would have scribbled in some memoir.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol, hyperbole much adeptus.
Nobody stated censorship, what was meant was to point out common markers of conspiracy theories in Order to make them easier avoided in research.
What constitutes a 'conspiracy theory', or 'making' one rather than 'discussing' one for entertainment? What's the difference between a 'conspiracy theory' and a 'possible theory that has not been proven'?
What's preventing this from being used during, say- a national leader's scandal, or possible criminal activities?
"That is fake news" certainly seems to range from being 'something the government should totally be doing!' to 'oh my god this tyrant is attacking the free press like a fascist!' depending on who's pointing the finger and whose brand of info-tainment is getting called out.
It's not hyperbole. It's common sense that these tools are delightful... when your guy is in charge. When it's not...
And a Ponzi scheme is a crime- being wrong, having a weird theory, speculation to the point of something being a bit wild- none of these are a crime. And then they become a crime, that's when you need to be afraid. Or be considered an enemy collaborator, it's all up to you.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe.
Because like any drug, it has side effects (AKA 'undesired effects', let's be real about what they are). And this one has already been in use to treat malaria, chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, systemic lupus erythematosus in adults, and rheumatoid arthritis. It's not brand new to the human body, it's just that they aren't sure if it's going to work on COVID-19- hence, they are actually testing it.
It's not some experimental Trioxin container that came out of a sinister black market lab secretly working for the Evil Orange.Some of you folks might need to take a moment and read a few things before stating something that isn't entirely true.
Essentially, the 'threat' with this stuff? Don't take it from some guy off the streets, don't use it at your house. It's a treatment that requires medical professional oversight, in a controlled environment, and like many other drugs there are side effects. It's far from the only drug like this.
Sweet lord, please read your links!
"Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine:
should be used for COVID-19 only when patients can be appropriately monitored in the hospital as required by the EUA or are enrolled in a clinical trial with appropriate screening and monitoring. FDA is reviewing the safety of their use when used outside of the setting of hospitalized patients for whom use was authorized.
have not been shown to be safe and effective for treating or preventing COVID-19.
are being studied in clinical trials for COVID-19, and FDA authorized their temporary use during the COVID-19 pandemic under limited circumstances through the EUA, and not through regular FDA approval.
being used under the EUA when supplied from the Strategic National Stockpile, the national repository of critical medical supplies to be used during public health emergencies.
can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation
can cause dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia.
pose risks that may increase when these medicines are combined with other medicines known to prolong the QT interval, including the antibiotic azithromycin, which is also being used in some COVID-19 patients without FDA approval for this condition.
should be used with caution in Patients who also have other health issues such as heart and kidney disease, who are likely to be at increased risk of these heart problems when receiving these medicines."
You are scared the government is going to give you something that could hurt you, yet you are out here promoting exactly what you are scared of. I bolded, italicized, and underlined the important part.
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe.
Because like any drug, it has side effects (AKA 'undesired effects', let's be real about what they are). And this one has already been in use to treat malaria, chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, systemic lupus erythematosus in adults, and rheumatoid arthritis. It's not brand new to the human body, it's just that they aren't sure if it's going to work on COVID-19- hence, they are actually testing it.
It's not some experimental Trioxin container that came out of a sinister black market lab secretly working for the Evil Orange.Some of you folks might need to take a moment and read a few things before stating something that isn't entirely true.
Essentially, the 'threat' with this stuff? Don't take it from some guy off the streets, don't use it at your house. It's a treatment that requires medical professional oversight, in a controlled environment, and like many other drugs there are side effects. It's far from the only drug like this.
The problem being that people are doing just that, Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured, and such drugs can cause more harm than good if used in conditions they aren't proven effective for (many drugs can cause harm if the original condition they're made for isn't present as conditions in the body are different) and there's little to no evidence that the drug is actually effective at treating Covid-19 outside a single study that wasn't conducted under approved clinical trials protocols.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.
Finland has done very well in this respect.
This sounds good. I’d be up for making vaccines compulsory (think of seatbelts) but if there’s an easier way it should be explored. What’s Finland done exactly?
You may want to read my post, because I was pretty clear about what it was. How about before you start concerning yourself with your immunity from bans because you believe in science, you take the first brave and bold steps into reading something thoroughly before you start commenting?
Dreadwinter wrote: You are scared the government is going to give you something that could hurt you, yet you are out here promoting exactly what you are scared of. I bolded, italicized, and underlined the important part.
What am I promoting, exactly? Information?
I thought so. Listen, take your own advice. Go leave the thread. Find a thing, read it entirely, and do a check on learning to see how much of it you retained. It'll help you out.
Vaktathi wrote: The problem being that people are doing just that-
You mean like that woman that is under investigation for murder, for poisoning her husband, and claimed that Orange Man said it was safe so they took fish tank cleaner...? Even though her political activities and donations speak of someone who doesn't like the Evil Orange or take him very seriously, at a certain point even if she didn't actually poison him- let's let Darwin do his job and clean up the gene pool a little, all right?
Vaktathi wrote: Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured, and such drugs can cause more harm than good if used in conditions they aren't proven effective for (many drugs can cause harm if the original condition they're made for isn't present as conditions in the body are different) and there's little to no evidence that the drug is actually effective at treating Covid-19 outside a single study that wasn't conducted under approved clinical trials protocols.
Can you show me a citation where he says this? I'm not defending him, I'm not saying he didn't. But let's just say there's a growing trend around here of repeating a talking point that is demonstrably a half-truth at best and twisting it to the point where inaccurate information is being passed off as objective fact. Let's just say I'd like to see this specific citation.
(Edit: I'm scanning over a few sources now. Still not sure what kind of person would go and find this stuff and chug it, considering that you'd have to be significantly mentally defective to think you could just go and pick up some chemical without going to a doctor and start chugging it- Darwin might have this one).
And while I can certainly fault the man for being wrong about something, or speaking misinformed... it's not like he's the only one. WHO was saying this couldn't be transferred from Person to Person back when we were getting leaked video from China of guys in Hazmat suits bagging & gagging suspected infected and welding doors shut. We were also being told to go to festivals, movies, etc. Oh- this was around March, too. I'm all for people being held to task for their words and actions, as long as it's consistent.
I was confused, then I realized I still have the same signature from years and years ago. Then I just laughed and facepalmed. Oh boy, this is just amazing.
Vaktathi wrote: Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured, and such drugs can cause more harm than good if used in conditions they aren't proven effective for (many drugs can cause harm if the original condition they're made for isn't present as conditions in the body are different) and there's little to no evidence that the drug is actually effective at treating Covid-19 outside a single study that wasn't conducted under approved clinical trials protocols.
Can you show me a citation where he says this? I'm not defending him, I'm not saying he didn't. But let's just say there's a growing trend around here of repeating a talking point that is demonstrably a half-truth at best and twisting it to the point where inaccurate information is being passed off as objective fact. Let's just say I'd like to see this specific citation.
"Now, a drug called chloroquine — and some people would add to it “hydroxy-.” Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. If somebody has pretty serious arthritis, also uses this in a somewhat different form. But it is known as a malaria drug, and it’s been around for a long time and it’s very powerful. But the nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if it — if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody."
Also, Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are two different chemical compounds/drugs, and he doesn't appear to recognize this.
So you are in Support of the Propaganda ministry?/s
There's a difference between putting out information that is ultimately good for the health of the people and thus the public, and propaganda.
I'm not anti vax. I believe in the science behind vaccines. Not blindly... There have been mistakes, as with everything in human history, but mistakes don't invalidate the overall concept.
my issue is at a liberty level. I don't believe in ceding to government control of our bodies.
this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.
Actually, it's less 'throwing in their lot' and more like 'being lumped in with'.- happens quite a bit, too. Also known as 'poisoning the well'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What you're saying here-
Vaktathi wrote: The problem being that people are doing just that, Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured....
"Now, a drug called chloroquine — and some people would add to it “hydroxy-.” Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. If somebody has pretty serious arthritis, also uses this in a somewhat different form. But it is known as a malaria drug, and it’s been around for a long time and it’s very powerful. But the nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if it — if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody."
Though I can see where there's some confusion, looks like there was a bit of a word stumble there at the end.
I can see where it could cause confusion but your claim isn't matching up with the quote- don't take this the wrong way, but when you try to dilute down a statement (or it's been presented to you in a diluted manner), rest assured that the little details that can make the difference... are often omitted.
Vaktathi wrote: Also, Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are two different chemical compounds/drugs, and he doesn't appear to recognize this.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: WHO was saying this couldn't be transferred from Person to Person back when we were getting leaked video from China of guys in Hazmat suits bagging & gagging suspected infected and welding doors shut. We were also being told to go to festivals, movies, etc. Oh- this was around March, too. I'm all for people being held to task for their words and actions, as long as it's consistent.
Can you provide a source of this? I do not remember this at all. I have been following this the whole time. I would really like to see this evidence, hate to see half truths spread around.
Dreadwinter wrote: Can you provide a source of this? I do not remember this at all. I have been following this the whole time. I would really like to see this evidence, hate to see half truths spread around.
Dreadwinter wrote: Can you provide a source of this? I do not remember this at all. I have been following this the whole time. I would really like to see this evidence, hate to see half truths spread around.
I'm not sure what details are missing, he said it was perfectly safe and wasn't going to kill anybody, but he doesn't know that as proper clinical trials for the usage he's suggesting haven't been done, he has no idea what the results will be if things don't "go as planned" because again, proper testing hasn't been done, hydroxocholorquine is known to extremely toxic if overdosed and deaths have occurred due to such, which would seem to undercut his statement regarding if things...don't go "as planned". Not sure what I'm diluting there. We're dancing around an awfully fine point there.
Either way, time for sleep. A warning for the thread in general, please play nice people, for I assure you the other mods will not be as merciful as I have been.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure what details are missing, he said it was perfectly safe and wasn't going to kill anybody, but he doesn't know that as proper clinical trials for the usage he's suggesting haven't been done, he has no idea what the results will be if things don't "go as planned" because again, proper testing hasn't been done, hydroxocholorquine is known to extremely toxic if overdosed and deaths have occurred due to such, which would seem to undercut his statement regarding if things...don't go "as planned". Not sure what I'm diluting there. We're dancing around an awfully fine point there.
Either way, time for sleep. A warning for the thread in general, please play nice people, for I assure you the other mods will not be as merciful as I have been.
Looks more to me like he was saying "If all goes as planned" no one will die. He wouldn't be the first president to speak without all the information (I remember one saying 'Mission Accomplished....a couple of years before I was there, you know, again).
Sleep well. Hands above the covers, you know the rules.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.
Actually, it's less 'throwing in their lot' and more like 'being lumped in with'.- happens quite a bit, too. Also known as 'poisoning the well'.
That is true, but I've seen plenty of them throwing in their lot when it comes up online too. its understandable, you drift towards things that seemingly support your argument. most people are guilty of it to some degree or in some circumstances. myself included.
So, the WHO said it on Jan 14. Then nothing else from the WHO. But the Mayor of New York(Not a Doctor and pretty much a moron) said some stuff? I see, I see, you are really clearing up these half truths that the WHO said this in March and encouraged people to go outside.
That is true, but I've seen plenty of them throwing in their lot when it comes up online too. its understandable, you drift towards things that seemingly support your argument. most people are guilty of it to some degree or in some circumstances. myself included.
Oh, yeah- of course. I mean, when you're just stoked about Batman and you hear someone else say "HEY I ALSO LOVE BATMAN!" you don't always realize that... it's a crackhead pooping in an alleyway until you get over there and see, and by that time it's too late. And he'll follow you for like four or five blocks, even if you tell him you don't carry cash- he knows where all the ATM's are.
...oddly specific, no reason. I... totally made all of that up. It never happened, don't bring it up again.
Overall, though- we have a larger problem in the US with people getting lumped into categories- quite unfairly, because it's easier to dismiss someone's position, beliefs, etc. if you can do that.
A good example would be people who say "I do not believe a member of the clergy should be mandated by law to perform any service he or she does not agree with or wish to support"- somehow that means you're against gay marriage- or worse, one of the people who thinks they all need to be rounded up into camps.
I think everyone should be sent to camps, but they should be actual fun summer camps with fishing and swimming and good times by the lake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: So, the WHO said it on Jan 14. Then nothing else from the WHO. But the Mayor of New York(Not a Doctor and pretty much a moron) said some stuff? I see, I see, you are really clearing up these half truths that the WHO said this in March and encouraged people to go outside.
...check my statement one more time. I think you need to look again.
Because now you're just coming off a little too desperate.
The only "Half" anything is how you read and comprehend. And I'm being generous. Time for you to hang it up.
So you are in Support of the Propaganda ministry?/s
There's a difference between putting out information that is ultimately good for the health of the people and thus the public, and propaganda.
I'm not anti vax. I believe in the science behind vaccines. Not blindly... There have been mistakes, as with everything in human history, but mistakes don't invalidate the overall concept.
my issue is at a liberty level. I don't believe in ceding to government control of our bodies.
this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.
wrongly attributed quote is wrongly attributed.
Also, your point hits the issue of the point where my freedom inhibits others.
It's a difficlt issue, not just because there are people that throw their lot in due to liberty issues but also because these rallies, etc have been also used atleast over here by left and rightwing extremists to hide under.
I think it is justifyable to enforce atleast temporarily a vacination in order to wipe out an illness via a punctual effort, in such a way and legitimized propperly via democratic processes, i feel like you coulld justify an absolute enforcement over a temporary period of time.
Not Online!!! wrote: I think it is justifyable to enforce atleast temporarily a vacination in order to wipe out an illness via a punctual effort, in such a way and legitimized propperly via democratic processes, i feel like you coulld justify an absolute enforcement over a temporary period of time.
Not that I've ever been one to argue with something like a proven vaccine, but hear me out. Play hypothetical with me.
What you gonna do if I refuse to come and get my shot?
I want you to think about that for a second.
Who you sending?
A law requires the authority to enforce it. And authority without the means and willingness to do violence is just a request.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, the WHO said it on Jan 14. Then nothing else from the WHO. But the Mayor of New York(Not a Doctor and pretty much a moron) said some stuff? I see, I see, you are really clearing up these half truths that the WHO said this in March and encouraged people to go outside.
...check my statement one more time. I think you need to look again.
Because now you're just coming off a little too desperate.
The only "Half" anything is how you read and comprehend. And I'm being generous. Time for you to hang it up.
I acknowledge that they said it on Jan 14. But here is your statement:
"WHO was saying this couldn't be transferred from Person to Person back when we were getting leaked video from China of guys in Hazmat suits bagging & gagging suspected infected and welding doors shut. We were also being told to go to festivals, movies, etc. Oh- this was around March, too. I'm all for people being held to task for their words and actions, as long as it's consistent."
This statement makes it seem as if the WHO was telling people to go out to festivals and movies and that they said the Person to Person thing in March. At no point do you mention New York or the Mayor of New York.
I am not sure how I was supposed to know all of this stuff about New York and the Mayor from your original statement. I guess my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be.
Not Online!!! wrote: I think it is justifyable to enforce atleast temporarily a vacination in order to wipe out an illness via a punctual effort, in such a way and legitimized propperly via democratic processes, i feel like you coulld justify an absolute enforcement over a temporary period of time.
Not that I've ever been one to argue with something like a proven vaccine, but hear me out. Play hypothetical with me.
What you gonna do if I refuse to come and get my shot?
I want you to think about that for a second.
Who you sending?
A law requires the authority to enforce it. And authority without the means and willingness to do violence is just a request.
That is a highly legality over legitimacy approach, but i am swiss, not bowing down to the decision of the masses in such a case, therefore not bowing your head in regards to the legitimacy over legality approach found in the institutions over here would lead to legitimate systemic violence torwards you.
In this case that can be either of these: Neighbours, muncipial government, cantonal or federal.
Pick your poison.
But that is mostly a difference in approach of the states in question no?
My core point was, that the the core issue of the the whole compulsury vaccination, targets the issue of personal freedom vs other individuals personal freedoms.
Dreadwinter wrote: This statement makes it seem as if the WHO was telling people to go out to festivals and movies and that they said the Person to Person thing in March. At no point do you mention New York or the Mayor of New York.
I am not sure how I was supposed to know all of this stuff about New York and the Mayor from your original statement. I guess my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be.
I'll allow it. Probably should've been a bit more clear. You get this one.
In this case that can be either of these: Neighbours, muncipial government, cantonal or federal.
Pick your poison.
Not everyone is going to be okay with being torn from their home and forcibly injected with Coof Juice.
That's a very dangerous scenario for quite a few people.
Now, of course, you give me the option to get a vaccine or something and I'm going to absolutely be all over that coof juice because by damn, my taxes probably paid for it and half the other problems, I'm going to get the coof juice and I better get a damned lollypop and a sticker to go with it.
However- at the end of the day, you are asking that someone be forcefully removed from their home to get some injection into their body by force.
I mean, everyone else should be vaccinated, right? Unless you're intervening for the safety of this guy's children at the home... you're crossing an ethical boundary that, in all honesty- would be hard to argue against getting a violent response.
i'll repeat it because i was editing it and you may missed it:
But that is mostly a difference in approach of the states in question no?
My core point was, that the the core issue of the the whole compulsury vaccination, targets the issue of personal freedom vs other individuals personal freedoms.
like i said, of course it's a grey area but how the states in question can behave is diffrent, Switzerland could force it through, especially if covered by a referendum in it's favour.
The states, not so much probably.
Because as rightfully pointed out, it tangents the ethical lines and baseline structure of constitutional states and their approach to legal questions.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because as rightfully pointed out, it tangents the ethical lines and baseline structure of constitutional states and their approach to legal questions.
Here's the thing you're going to hear:
"If everyone is vaccinated and Old Bob Slipperdoodle is refusing to comply, then he's the guy that isn't vaccinated and everyone else is- what's the problem?" Of course I know it's a bit more complex than this, or at least it can be.
If the risk is "this one guy didn't get his coof juice to keep him from getting the Wu Flu", then...feth that guy, let him deal with the consequences. It's his body, his choice. Unless you can show me how it'll be a real hazard if that one guy refuses the coof juice? Well, just a lesson from Waco- don't stand near the damned window to get your 'badass photo op'.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because as rightfully pointed out, it tangents the ethical lines and baseline structure of constitutional states and their approach to legal questions.
Here's the thing you're going to hear:
"If everyone is vaccinated and Old Bob Slipperdoodle is refusing to comply, then he's the guy that isn't vaccinated and everyone else is- what's the problem?" Of course I know it's a bit more complex than this, or at least it can be.
If the risk is "this one guy didn't get his coof juice to keep him from getting the Wu Flu", then... feth that guy, let him deal with the consequences. It's his body, his choice. Unless you can show me how it'll be a real hazard if that one guy refuses the coof juice? Well, just a lesson from Waco- don't stand near the damned window to get your 'badass photo op'.
It is more of, how many friends does that one guy have? Because vaccines are a percentage game. You need a certain percentage of the population to be vaccinated or it is pointless. Then it comes down to "Alright, is it worth it to not force these people to vaccinate and risk X number of lives or do we force them and risk them becoming violent?"
Not Online!!! wrote: Because as rightfully pointed out, it tangents the ethical lines and baseline structure of constitutional states and their approach to legal questions.
Here's the thing you're going to hear:
"If everyone is vaccinated and Old Bob Slipperdoodle is refusing to comply, then he's the guy that isn't vaccinated and everyone else is- what's the problem?" Of course I know it's a bit more complex than this, or at least it can be.
If the risk is "this one guy didn't get his coof juice to keep him from getting the Wu Flu", then... feth that guy, let him deal with the consequences. It's his body, his choice. Unless you can show me how it'll be a real hazard if that one guy refuses the coof juice? Well, just a lesson from Waco- don't stand near the damned window to get your 'badass photo op'.
tbf, slipperdoodle is an issue for anyone with a compromised immune system and other verifyably valid reasons can't take their vaccines.
Not only is he a danger to himself which he can be so long he pleases but also a danger to these folks aswell.
it would be perfectly valid to restrict him to specific areas. simple consequence.
Its a tricky issue for sure. I err on the side on not enforcing things like that though. Enforcement against natural freedoms can lead to resentment, and turn people, who would probably possess enough altruism to be swayed by reasonable explanation, against your cause.
We've never required mandatory vaccination in the UK before, I don't think it should change now, especially not in regards to this specific virus and its mortality rate.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because as rightfully pointed out, it tangents the ethical lines and baseline structure of constitutional states and their approach to legal questions.
Here's the thing you're going to hear:
"If everyone is vaccinated and Old Bob Slipperdoodle is refusing to comply, then he's the guy that isn't vaccinated and everyone else is- what's the problem?" Of course I know it's a bit more complex than this, or at least it can be.
If the risk is "this one guy didn't get his coof juice to keep him from getting the Wu Flu", then... F**k that guy, let him deal with the consequences. It's his body, his choice. Unless you can show me how it'll be a real hazard if that one guy refuses the coof juice? Well, just a lesson from Waco- don't stand near the damned window to get your 'badass photo op'.
tbf, slipperdoodle is an issue for anyone with a compromised immune system and other verifyably valid reasons can't take their vaccines.
Not only is he a danger to himself which he can be so long he pleases but also a danger to these folks aswell.
it would be perfectly valid to restrict him to specific areas. simple consequence.
The immuno-compromised take, or should be taking adequate precautions, simply because of the myriad of other hazards to them that cant really be removed by legislation. That in itself is not a reason to blanket violate the natural freedoms of entire populations.
Not Online!!! wrote: it would be perfectly valid to restrict him to specific areas. simple consequence.
The trouble is, this leads to ID cards.
How else do you know whether someone has or has not had a jab?
sure it would be difficult, but the key issue is again, to reiterate, that it tangents the baseline of a state.
over here he would get probably fined to hell and back and forced to take the jab because everything else in this scenario would be regarded as illegitimate.
sure it would be difficult, but the key issue is again, to reiterate, that it tangents the baseline of a state.
over here he would get probably fined to hell and back and forced to take the jab because everything else in this scenario would be regarded as illegitimate.
Fined? Sounds great, until he looks at the person demanding his money and says "get fethed".
Now we're back at the daring raid to make this man take his coof juice.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because as rightfully pointed out, it tangents the ethical lines and baseline structure of constitutional states and their approach to legal questions.
Here's the thing you're going to hear:
"If everyone is vaccinated and Old Bob Slipperdoodle is refusing to comply, then he's the guy that isn't vaccinated and everyone else is- what's the problem?" Of course I know it's a bit more complex than this, or at least it can be.
If the risk is "this one guy didn't get his coof juice to keep him from getting the Wu Flu", then... feth that guy, let him deal with the consequences. It's his body, his choice. Unless you can show me how it'll be a real hazard if that one guy refuses the coof juice? Well, just a lesson from Waco- don't stand near the damned window to get your 'badass photo op'.
tbf, slipperdoodle is an issue for anyone with a compromised immune system and other verifyably valid reasons can't take their vaccines.
Not only is he a danger to himself which he can be so long he pleases but also a danger to these folks aswell.
it would be perfectly valid to restrict him to specific areas. simple consequence.
The immuno-compromised take, or should be taking adequate precautions, simply because of the myriad of other hazards to them that cant really be removed by legislation. That in itself is not a reason to blanket violate the natural freedoms of entire populations.
i'll repeat it because i was editing it and you may missed it:
But that is mostly a difference in approach of the states in question no?
My core point was, that the the core issue of the the whole compulsury vaccination, targets the issue of personal freedom vs other individuals personal freedoms.
like i said, of course it's a grey area but how the states in question can behave is diffrent, Switzerland could force it through, especially if covered by a referendum in it's favour.
The states, not so much probably.
Because as rightfully pointed out, it tangents the ethical lines and baseline structure of constitutional states and their approach to legal questions.
I'd like to mention that I just point to the statesphilosophical point and this in no means represent my opinion on the matter.
But in this case, if done over here, with a referendum as backing on the question it would look bad for slipperdoodle.
sure it would be difficult, but the key issue is again, to reiterate, that it tangents the baseline of a state.
over here he would get probably fined to hell and back and forced to take the jab because everything else in this scenario would be regarded as illegitimate.
Fined? Sounds great, until he looks at the person demanding his money and says "get fethed".
Now we're back at the daring raid to make this man take his coof juice.
wouldn't be the first time somone got legitimatly shot over here.
You forget that switzerland is inherently instable, the only reason it works is because people accept the democratic process of the institutions and slipperdoodle over here would be in violation of that.
good riddance would probably be the only remark you'd hear as harsh as that sounds.
Not Online!!! wrote: [spoiler]wouldn't be the first time somone got legitimatly shot over here.
You forget that switzerland is inherently instable, the only reason it works is because people accept the democratic process of the institutions and slipperdoodle over here would be in violation of that.
good riddance would probably be the only remark you'd hear as harsh as that sounds.
Probably. Sounds simple enough.
...until that door breach isn't the only bang. Or something to that effect. You can act like guns are hard to get over there, but it ain't like explosives are hard to make.
Hope he was worth the other guys you brought.
Just saying- this is another human being's body you're talking about, and you're forcing substances into his body against his will and without his consent. Unless you can demonstrate that not doing so to this one specific person is somehow a threat to other people? You're very much violating someone's body.
And if he was paranoid, suspicious? Congratulations- you just validated him, and many others like him.
It's probably torpedoed tons of fines handed out for breaking lockdown, so I imagine you're glad it's hit the news hard for that reason, if nothing else?
Hancock has just said that yes, they may well have to revisit and revise fines handed out to people traveling.
Literally retrospectively changing legal penalties to protect an advisor.
And now the official line is that Hancock did not mean this.
sure it would be difficult, but the key issue is again, to reiterate, that it tangents the baseline of a state.
over here he would get probably fined to hell and back and forced to take the jab because everything else in this scenario would be regarded as illegitimate.
Fined? Sounds great, until he looks at the person demanding his money and says "get fethed".
Now we're back at the daring raid to make this man take his coof juice.
Fined, then when he says "get fethed" the police roll in to retrieve the money. He retreats to his home because he cannot hold off that kind of force. Then we have him quarantined. He can pay it or hopefully self sustain on his property. Otherwise he is going to get hungry and have to give up eventually.
Don't need a raid, just need patience. Not everything is some crazy "YOU WILL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE" scenario for all the little rebels and militiamen out there.
Edit: Just like to point out, this worked perfectly fine with the Branch Dildonians.
Not Online!!! wrote: [spoiler]wouldn't be the first time somone got legitimatly shot over here.
You forget that switzerland is inherently instable, the only reason it works is because people accept the democratic process of the institutions and slipperdoodle over here would be in violation of that.
good riddance would probably be the only remark you'd hear as harsh as that sounds.
Probably. Sounds simple enough.
...until that door breach isn't the only bang. Or something to that effect. You can act like guns are hard to get over there, but it ain't like explosives are hard to make.
Hope he was worth the other guys you brought.
Just saying- this is another human being's body you're talking about, and you're forcing substances into his body against his will and without his consent. Unless you can demonstrate that not doing so to this one specific person is somehow a threat to other people? You're very much violating someone's body.
And if he was paranoid, suspicious? Congratulations- you just validated him, and many others like him.
Good luck. You still got those Sword guys, right?
? What sword guys? I am swiss, at most you'd see a halberd or pike in regards to mediavel weaponry.
Also gun ownership is about the same level as texas with far less gun violence. You know, mandatory conscription and all that..
As for the his body part, yeah but not just his body is in danger.
If he is paranoid then that is covered in the mandate healthcare insurance all swiss citizens have, he'd be declared non responsible for his behaviour because he isn't and brought into mental health institution to help him get better.
Tidied this somewhat, remember the rules everyone.
1. Be polite (that includes not swearing).
2. Stay on topic.
3. No spam.
Any further failures to comply with these really simple instructions will results in further warnings/suspensions/deportations to Antarctica without a jumper.
Labour MP Ian Mearns asks why schools in the NE (approx 500 cases per 100,000) are reopening at same time as those in Devon and Cornwall where incidence of #Covid19 is about a fifth of that.
Gibb says SAGE only recognise a national R rate, not regional ones.
That seems.. unwise/ridiculous.
If this is the case then one doesn't see how we're going to correctly apply things like regional lockdowns or take further actions when the figures can be wildly skewed like this.
Morning temperature checks as 2.4 million pupils head back to the classroom in South Korea. The first temp check of the day. Socially distant lines and hand sanitizer also in use. As you can see in the video, one student’s temp was up because of a hot drink in her bag!
The students have been filling in a phone app every day to monitor any symptoms. They also manage to keep apart at the school gate despite not having seen one another for some time!
447 schools across South Korea postponed their opening today due to fears of covid-19 infection.
111 of those were in the capital Seoul.
However, 2.8 million students are in class today wearing masks and having their temperature taken. More are due to return next week.
South Korea has reported its highest daily number of coronavirus cases in 49 days just as more than 2 million pupils return to school. 40 new cases of Covid-19 have been reported today. Most related to the nightclub cluster in Seoul. It’s making teachers ever more vigilant..
People saying this jump is, possibly, related to nightclubs/similar reopening earlier -- maybe even 1 particular hotspot perhaps ?
All it would take is one person in a nightclub and it could easily spread to 40 or more people in one evening. A dense indoor area where people dance around. Even if you try social distancing once people have a few drinks in them that will be the first thing they forget (and even if they remember they'll be more 2 inches than 2m when they try and measure it in a drunk state).
I still don't get the mass need to send students back to schools; esp in the UK since its so close to the Summer that student's won't do much save pass all the viruses they've got around for a few weeks before leaving for the holidays.
Overread wrote: All it would take is one person in a nightclub and it could easily spread to 40 or more people in one evening. A dense indoor area where people dance around. Even if you try social distancing once people have a few drinks in them that will be the first thing they forget (and even if they remember they'll be more 2 inches than 2m when they try and measure it in a drunk state).
I still don't get the mass need to send students back to schools; esp in the UK since its so close to the Summer that student's won't do much save pass all the viruses they've got around for a few weeks before leaving for the holidays.
I think the rationale in the UK is more about getting the economy up and running again. So sending the kids back to school means parents no longer have to be at home to look after them, which allows the parents to go back to work. Not saying it's a good rationale! It does seem to be the case that transmission between kids and from kids to adults is much, much lower than adult-adult transmission, so theoretically there's a lower risk to the kids in reopening schools. My problem comes with the adult-adult interactions surrounding schools. The ones around me get really busy at the start and end of the day and the locations of them don't really lend themselves to allowing easy social distancing of the parents while picking up their kids.
Thing is the schools aren't going to run during the summer, they are mostly sticking to their old holiday pattern. I think the only ones that they might keep on are for essential workers; same as those who have been going to school since lockdowns started.
So its only one or two weeks of getting the economy going again before parents are back to childcaring once more.
My little girl is going back to nursery next monday. That's 6 weeks of socialising and playing with other kids that she drastically needs. Lockdown has been tough for her. She is more emotional and misbehaves more due to only having her parents to hang out with.
The last 3 pages of this thread is why we can not have nice things. It is the old Politics Thread in a microcosm, because some how the response to a Pandemic is now political and not medical. The whole thread should be locked because there are no common grounds or basic facts anymore....
This is not an accusation as I am part of the problem too!
Reminds me a of a couple jokes I heard..... I will put them in Spoilers so you can choose if you want to read them. They are not funny.
Spoiler:
"A guy is stranded on a desert island and prays to god to save him. A boat comes by and offers to pick him up, but he declines because God will save him. Next a Helicopter flies over and offers to help him, but he declines because God will save him. Finally, a Hot air balloonist lands and offers to take him to land, but the man refuses again. God will save him.
The man dies on the island. He goes to the pearly gates and yells angrily at God, "Why didn't you save me?"
The second joke.... I will spoiler them so you can decide if you want to read them. They are not funny....
[spoiler]
"I went to the dentist. They X-rayed my teeth, which we all know if done wrong can cause cancer or sterilize you. They told me I had a cavity and I rescheduled an appointment to get them filled.
When I came back, they showed me the X-ray image and explained what they were going to do to fill them. I knew better.
"Why should I believe you? You just want my money! "
"If you don't get them fixed, the tooth could abscess and kill you?"
"How can I trust you?" You just want my money?"
"I am board certified and graduated from the University after 6 years of Dentistry School. I have been YOUR Dentist for 2 decades now. You choose to come see me?"
Thanks for reminding me that a tooth abscess can kill you. I’ve currently got one that I can’t do anything about other than take antibiotics and hope for the best, on account of dentists being closed. If this is what kills me I’ll be seriously pissed off...
And I’ve come to accept that this thread will be closed in time. Dakka just can’t handle real life issues with any maturity. I’ll just enjoy it while it lasts.
Also my neighbours have a beagle puppy and I’m annoyed that I can’t play with her yet. Life sucks atm.
Future War Cultist wrote: Thanks for reminding me that a tooth abscess can kill you. I’ve currently got one that I can’t do anything about other than take antibiotics and hope for the best, on account of dentists being closed. If this is what kills me I’ll be seriously pissed off...
If it gets bad and you start developing symptoms that could be a result of the injection spreading, call your dentist again and/or 111. There are emergency dentists who will be able to treat you and if they do not have one at your dental surgery then 111 should be able to put you in contact with one. Good luck, hope the antibiotics help!
Overread wrote: You know you can get dental work done at the ER and hospital right.
Not here you can’t. The only hospital in the city geared up to do them isn’t doing them.
Try not to stress, I'm pretty sure the fatality rate is low, and that's without the fact you're already treating with antibiotics.
Like I've said before, dad had a dental abscess he had to manage for literally years before it got to a point where he could get it treated permanently, so I think the odds are well in your favour.
It perhaps wouldn't be the worst idea to pick up a digital thermometer (pre Covid I got one off Amazon for about £6) and keep an eye on your temperature if you're really concerned. If it starts to leak, I'd imagine a fever would be one of the first symptoms, and you may not notice a mild fever, especially in the warm weather.
It perhaps wouldn't be the worst idea to pick up a digital thermometer (pre Covid I got one off Amazon for about £6) and keep an eye on your temperature if you're really concerned. If it starts to leak, I'd imagine a fever would be one of the first symptoms, and you may not notice a mild fever, especially in the warm weather.
That's a good call. FWC, from a quick look at the NHS website regarding dental abscesses, also keep an eye out for swelling around the eyes or neck (I imagine it probably depends on the location of the abcess but don't hold me to that, I'm not a dentist!) or if you are having difficulty swallowing or breathing. Head to A&E if you get any of that.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Another terrible rash decision taken with no thought. They need to start seriously talking about opening dentists back up soon.
I don't really blame them for being closed- dental work is one of the highest risk things to be doing in the current climate, same as ENT or maxillofacial. A lot of that work is aerosol-generating and involves being right up close to the face too. Emergency stuff is still happening in life-threatening cases, but if someone can be safely managed with antibiotics until the risk of COVID drops, I think that is sensible. Having a dead dentist is less helpful in the long run.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Another terrible rash decision taken with no thought. They need to start seriously talking about opening dentists back up soon.
With a pandemic that spread from air contact person to person I'd wager dentists are probably one of the most highly at risk groups to catch it and also pass it on if they have it. The entire dental process is leaning over your mouth as you breath with their gloved fingers all over your mouth insides. If you've got it you've likely infected all of their gear - masks, gloves, equipment. That's all got to be fully cleaned down or replaced (with proper removal and replacement protocol). Any charts, computers or equipment would likely have to be handled by a second person to avoid casual contamination, which considering many dentists already have someone else to hold other tools in your mouth means potentially three people in the room at once. Now you've got four people in close proximity even if they are wearing masks and gloves and such.
For complex procedures they'll spend as long if not longer directly with you than a hairdresser will. So yep closing them was the right call.
I do agree that they are required and are essential and should reopen when its possible to do so. When the virus spread is low; when there are sensible safguards and methods that they can use and gain access to appropriate quantities of the right kind of PPE. Plus they would need regular testing to ensure that if they or any of their team became infected they can close the practice quickly and communicate the information to their clients swiftly.
It’s so stupid. I was due a regular check up in March, then the lockdown came and because they’re caught with their trousers down over testing, no dentists are open. I was told they’re basically forbidden atm. All I could do was ring my practice, who helped me get the tablets, but that’s all they can do.
And all I can do is monitor it and hope it doesn’t get worst. It’s...not bad really. Hard to notice even. Just frustrating that I can’t get it sorted.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Another terrible rash decision taken with no thought. They need to start seriously talking about opening dentists back up soon.
With a pandemic that spread from air contact person to person I'd wager dentists are probably one of the most highly at risk groups to catch it and also pass it on if they have it. The entire dental process is leaning over your mouth as you breath with their gloved fingers all over your mouth insides. If you've got it you've likely infected all of their gear - masks, gloves, equipment. That's all got to be fully cleaned down or replaced (with proper removal and replacement protocol). Any charts, computers or equipment would likely have to be handled by a second person to avoid casual contamination, which considering many dentists already have someone else to hold other tools in your mouth means potentially three people in the room at once. Now you've got four people in close proximity even if they are wearing masks and gloves and such.
For complex procedures they'll spend as long if not longer directly with you than a hairdresser will. So yep closing them was the right call.
I do agree that they are required and are essential and should reopen when its possible to do so. When the virus spread is low; when there are sensible safguards and methods that they can use and gain access to appropriate quantities of the right kind of PPE. Plus they would need regular testing to ensure that if they or any of their team became infected they can close the practice quickly and communicate the information to their clients swiftly.
Also, every dentist who contracts covid due to exposure during routine treatment is a dentist not available for emergency dental work.
So by keeping ordinary practice running you can actually increase the risks for those in need of emergency treatment if the staff are now unavailable to treat them due to being sick.
Yeah, the closure of dentists is pretty much inarguable.
The issue was the less than stellar organisation of emergency care provision on the back of that, but it isn't surprising given the rushed nature of everything around the same time.
Azreal13 wrote: Yeah, the closure of dentists is pretty much inarguable.
The issue was the less than stellar organisation of emergency care provision on the back of that, but it isn't surprising given the rushed nature of everything around the same time.
you think you got your trousers down, but imagine you have prepared trousers for such a rainshow and then proceed to just throw it out the proverbial window into a shredder.
That's what happened over here with the pandemie plan, aka pandemic emergency plan, aka the one plan neither the federal nor cantonal gov followed and we therefore had an absolutely avoidable lack of masks and other equipment, if it weren't for the horder military with old stuff we'd been buggered even more....
I'm surprised nobody has been trotting out Japan as an example of beating the virus without a lockdown as its been in the news lately. On the surface the numbers look great, only 800-900 dead?? But then....
the deadline for prefectures to submit fatality figures is the fifth day of the second month after -- June 5 for April's numbers, for example. Japan's death counts are always two months behind as a result.
So, if true, Japans big success is based on numbers effective as of March 31st by my understanding. For comparison, at the time the US had 3,774 deaths. Today the US has 100,000, so extrapolating a bit it seems safe to assume that Japan actually has had about 30,000 deaths to date. Be interesting to see the numbers reported on August 5th.
Xenomancers wrote: A prolonged lockdown actually has the potential to cause the virus to kill more people as it ensures there is an active body of people who can transmit the virus. .
You're going to have to explain this one.
A lockdown restricts population movement and population interaction and duration of those interactions. Any infected "pockets" of population should, with the lockdown and self isolation due to infection, remain more isolated and thus reduce the potential spread of the virus to new populations and people. Done right with track and trace so you can put infected (and those who came into contact with infected) into not just lockdown, but full isolation for a few weeks, means that you contain and eliminate the virus spread.
I think the idea is that because we have restricted where people can go it will cause everybody who does go out to go to the same places. Which results in more people being in proximity than they would otherwise. IE: If people would normally go to X, Y , and Z, but during lockdown only Z is open, then everybody will go to Z. Which results in everybody being in 1 place as opposed to 3.
I certainly know at Costco that we've had much higher numbers of people in the store at all times compared to normal. Its like a busy weekend, but every day of the week rather than just on the weekend.
This is just terrible logic and lack of understanding as to how things work. The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X. Lockdowns do not change X, lockdowns change the time it takes to reach X. A lockdown will not increase the number of people who will die from coronavirus - ever - it will only kick those deaths further into the future, with the hope that they can ultimately be avoided by way of the development of a vaccine or treatment before those lottery numbers come up. The simple fact of the matter is that coronavirus will spread through a largely fixed percentage of the population before reaching a herd immunity burnout point regardless of a lockdown, no amount of xenomancer claiming otherwise will change that.
Xenomancers wrote:Literally everything I said is true and from the heart.
From the heart? Maybe. True? Hardly.
Not to mention the fact that this virus DOES NOT KILL people under 60 at a scary rate.
No, it just leaves them alive with horrible damage to their lungs, kidneys, brain, neurological system, heart, vascular system, etc. The impact on coronavirus survivors is absolutely horrendous and has long-lasting implications on their quality of life (and quite likely will result in a significantly decreased lifespan).
For the record, Breitbart is absolute partisan trash. Don't ever link that dumpsterfire in a reply to me again.
This. I refuse to give them a penny of ad revenue from my clicks.
The state had to change the way deaths are reported due to the legal ramifications so now you can die ‘with’ or ‘from’ COVID19, how it should have been from the start.
IMO, as long as the deaths attributed to COVID are lower than the excess mortality total, then I have no concerns about miscounts or overreported totals, if anything everyone is underreporting the actual numbers and the deaths are significantly higher.
A.D. wrote:(it hasn't damaged china's.)
This is mathematically, statistically, and demonstrably false.
3 billion nationalist slaves
China has a pop. of 1.3 billion. Its bad enough that your opinions are abjectly stupid, the least you could do is try to get a couple basic facts right.
Look at what they did to the oil prices which is basically what the dollar is based on.
China has nothing to do with oil prices - thats Russia and Saudi Arabia.
China doesn't rely on exports anymore they import just as much and are now self sufficient. They are already the strongest economy based on productivity.
You clearly don't understand how economies work or what self sufficient means. Chinese economy is still largely export driven, and they are absolutely taking a massive hit to their GDP from all this. Your last bit is patently false, Chinese productivity figures are actually astoshingly low, entire papers and studies have been done trying to figure out how such a low-productivity country can have such a powerhouse economy (hint: its the exports). Heres a good read if you're inclined to, yknow, actually do some basic research: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-low-productivity-superpower
Because a lockdown means low oil demand - tanking the prices. They obviously know lockdowns will be enforced when they send the virus to the west.
Let's face it we are in a cold war.
Considering that China was the first to lockdown, and also massively cut its own oil imports as a result.... and that the main trigger for the drop in oil prices was Saudi Arabia and Russia refusing to cut oil production/actively increasing production despite the drop in supply, I once again have to say that you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.
and I do my own research
doing your own research is meaningless if you don't understand what it is you're researching and derive gakky conclusions from it. Also, no amount of degreees from Google University will ever make your "research" more meaningful or factual than actual expertise. Don't let your ego get the better of you and allow you to believe that your contrarian ideology is more meaningful than expert consensus.
No you're absolutely wrong. China's economy is not based on exports anymore. It was 10+ years ago so you're just a bit behind. Not to worry.
Absolutely wrong. While China has been driving its economic growth through domestic consumption for the past decade, exports still make up about 18% of its GDP (down from about 25% in 2010). I don't care what alternative facts you believe, losing up to 18% of your economic productivity as a result to a decline in exports is still an economic nightmare.
In my view.
Your view is an opinion, not fact. Stop pretending otherwise.
Even this is wrong, while Wuhan got most of the attention, there were a total of 48 cities and four provinces that were put under lockdown orders within the same timeframe, totallying about 500 million people (or in your world, I would guess about 1.75 billion people). Since those orders lifted, several additional cities were put under lockdown (in at least one case for a second time) in response to flareups.
Didn't know Malibu is in new jersey?
not to mention the first pic you post shows an UK cop if i am not mistaken.
Whilest the video looks like the states?
This dude has to be trolling. He just has to be. He has to be like 12 years old, and trolling, theres no other explanation.
Does ANYONE here, know a single person (not a friend of a friend) who has COVID-19?
Yes. Being in New Jersey I know quite a few people personally who were diagnosed with it, several of which were hospitalized, and a couple who died as a result.
The Regulator wrote: it's also that people don't trust vaccines or medical experts.
Thats *their* problem.
Come on Ins that's not the same thing at all. People know the effect of a piece of fabric harnessing their body and can put trust in that. If you don't think that's logical for safety then everyone is going to disagree with you. Injections of liquids that may be deemed as mysterious to an individual is a different matter.
Science knows the effect of injecting said "mysterious liquids" into the human body and you can put trust in that.
As far as seatbelts are concerned, when seatbelt laws became a thing in the 1980s (well, in the US at least) people are argued that "a piece of fabric harnessing their body" was not going to save them and not something they could trust and would cause greater injury to them from arresting their movement to suddenly etc etc etc, so yes its absolutely the same thing.
it's also that people don't trust vaccines or medical experts.
Thats *their* problem.
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
If you can't figure that out? I... you know what, just stay right where you're at. I'm gonna let you experience this, I won't cheat you out of it.
Sounds like the response of someone who doesn't actually have a well formulated argument.
I'm a vet. I've been around long enough to have experimental vaccines thrown at me. And long enough to see some of the guys that were around before me, and what some of those 'mandatory medicines' did to them.
Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately, depending on your perspective), the standards for administration of medication and vaccines to the civilian population is much stricter than it is for the military. The government can literally do things to servicemen and women openly that would outright be illegal if done to the civilian population (or more accurately - would be illegal if they got caught doing it) on the basis of operational necessity. Heres the thing though - by joining the armed forces you tacitly agreed to this, so its inaccurate to say you and your battle buddies were forced to take medication or receive the vaccine, whether or not you were aware of this when you signed on the dotted line is a different story.
I want to know more about the weird pocket in your upper jaw.
The effects of mefloquine are pretty similar to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquiine, in fact some consider mefloquine to be a safer alternative to the other two.
If the reason those pills were administered ever came to pass, you'd probably be glad that you took them despite the side effects.
Neither of these are vaccines, and for the most part most of the side effects were understood when you were told to take them (not so much with the PB pills, but with the mefloquine it sure was), whether they told you this is a different story.
The idea is still the same.
Its not, at all, unless you zoom out and overgeneralize to the point that the distinction between those things loses all meaning and context.
The funny thing is, quite a few places in the US have gone back to 'normal'. And have been for the last few weeks. We've yet to see a spike at these places.
Exactly, its back to 'normal', not normal. People aren't interacting like they did before the pandemic and the lockdown period made sure the R rate would be kept low. Unless something is going seriously wrong or people stopped caring, there shouldn't be significant spikes (see most of Europe after lockdown). Of course not everyone is sensible and with the weather getting better, we will have to see where this is going.
Thats varying shades of incorrect and subject to external factors
Humboldt County, CA for example has seen a spike - mind you the numbers we are talking about there were so low to begin with that a singgle cough could have triggered it. In any case, on a micro scale its a proof-of-concept of what could happen on a macro-scale if things are walked back.
Georgia is seeing an uptick in cases, but not a "spike". This is likely in part due to the fact that the COVID restrictions originally in place in Georgia were lenient to begin with, and only in place for a very short period before being lifted (read: didn't have the full effect of reducing cases to near 0, they were still reporting 505 new cases per day when they reopened, down from a high of 770). Georgia opened prematurely, they were basically still in their initial spike when they reopened, thus in the case of Georgia it doesn't look like they are "spiking" because their baseline was already too high.
As of last week they were back up to 675 cases per day - that would be considered a spike had the lockdown been left in place the way it should have been - going to 675 from 0 is a lot, going to 675 from 505? not so much.
Florida has similar issues, the lockdown measures were half-assed to begin with and weren't in place long enough to make a difference, so the numbers today, relative to the baseline scenario, do not message a "spike" even though they would constitute one in normal circumstances. The Florida situation is even more convoluted by the fact that the lockdowns and restrictions in Florida were not implemented or lifted evenly, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties were still in lockdown as of last week, various other counties and municipalities have implented their own measures to varying degrees. We can't really look at the data and say "its been x days, no spike, everything is fine" because thats not accurate to the situation, especially when about 30% of the state is still under lockdown/safer at home orders.
You can contrast the graphs on those worldometer links to the ones for states like NJ and NY which show a clear "bend"/flattening of the curve relative to the others and an appreciable and significant impact.
TL;DR - Yes, we are seeing a spike in those places, but the pre-existing conditions in those areas prior to the "renormalization" period mean that the spikes are hidden.
After some thought, I hope I didn’t sound ‘bitchy’ about dentists. Of course I completely understand the risks and dangers that their profession is going through at the moment. I’m just a little anxious about this bastard brewing away in my mouth.
chaos0xomega wrote: TL;DR - Yes, we are seeing a spike in those places, but the pre-existing conditions in those areas prior to the "renormalization" period mean that the spikes are hidden.
Yes this is the significant difference between lockdown states and states with restrictions. After a lockdown the curve should be able to be kept relatively flat. Of course the problematic thing is if political convenience bleeds into decision making, like when Georgia switched dates around to create a nice looking downward slope of cases, which is just horrific.
This is just terrible logic and lack of understanding as to how things work. The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X. Lockdowns do not change X, lockdowns change the time it takes to reach X. A lockdown will not increase the number of people who will die from coronavirus - ever - it will only kick those deaths further into the future, with the hope that they can ultimately be avoided by way of the development of a vaccine or treatment before those lottery numbers come up. The simple fact of the matter is that coronavirus will spread through a largely fixed percentage of the population before reaching a herd immunity burnout point regardless of a lockdown, no amount of xenomancer claiming otherwise will change that.
I don't think this is totally true, or coronavirus would not be putting any strain on health services, only morgues. I agree that lockdowns do not change the number of cases over time, only spreading those cases out.
However, to say there is no affect on the number of deaths implies that healthcare can do nothing to improve the chances of survival for someone with COVID-19, which I think is incorrect. By spreading out the number of cases at any one time, the death rate should be reduced compared to allowing them to just pile in unchecked, because the healthcare resources available to each individual case are greater.
This is most obvious in examples like the hard hit regions of Italy, where the healthcare system was overwhelmed, but even without being overwhelmed the available resources are going to be greater and the level of care will likely be somewhat superior if healthcare systems are further away form breaking point.
If there is no difference to the total number of deaths with a lockdown, then there is zero point in admitting COVID patients to hospital because you are essentially saying the death rate is the same regardless of the level of treatment received.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: After some thought, I hope I didn’t sound ‘bitchy’ about dentists. Of course I completely understand the risks and dangers that their profession is going through at the moment. I’m just a little anxious about this bastard brewing away in my mouth.
I am sure it is pretty worrying, but antibiotics should contain any infection until you can get it definitively sorted. Although I feel you on metronidazole, the side effects are pretty horrible on your quality of life.
I don't think he meant that heatlhcare doesn't improve the chances, more that X amount 'would' die to the virus due to their circumstances, but without a lockdown you would have an additional amount dying on top of that due to lack of care, so X+N. If no vaccine is found and the virus continues to spread, a certain number of people would eventually die from it, with or without lockdown.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't think he meant that heatlhcare doesn't improve the chances, more that X amount 'would' die to the virus due to their circumstances, but without a lockdown you would have an additional amount dying on top of that due to lack of care, so X+N. If no vaccine is found and the virus continues to spread, a certain number of people would eventually die from it, with or without lockdown.
I think what you are saying is right- there is a base number that cannot be saved from COVID- which is X- and that lockdowns allow N more cases to be saved through functioning healthcare. But I think that is a lot less ambiguous than what was said originally. Considering the original comment was in support of lockdowns happening, I think it is important to be clear on why lockdowns can improve the situation.
ITT: A lot of chaps advising another chap on how to avoid dying due to lack of dentistry access.
Also ITT: a chap explaining how it's really rather good for national health for the dentists to be shut down, as there is a danger of lack of access to dentists for emergency services if too many dentists are exposed and infected.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't think he meant that heatlhcare doesn't improve the chances, more that X amount 'would' die to the virus due to their circumstances, but without a lockdown you would have an additional amount dying on top of that due to lack of care, so X+N. If no vaccine is found and the virus continues to spread, a certain number of people would eventually die from it, with or without lockdown.
I think what you are saying is right- there is a base number that cannot be saved from COVID- which is X- and that lockdowns allow N more cases to be saved through functioning healthcare. But I think that is a lot less ambiguous than what was said originally. Considering the original comment was in support of lockdowns happening, I think it is important to be clear on why lockdowns can improve the situation.
I think the part he was replying to in that quote pyramid was this bit by Xenomancers:
A prolonged lockdown actually has the potential to cause the virus to kill more people as it ensures there is an active body of people who can transmit the virus.
No no he's saying that X number of people will die without question even if they get current top end medical care.
That value won't go down, however you don't increase it with lockdown. Lockdown doesn't stop that number happening, it instead helps spread it out over a longer period so that you don't go much above it. Because you keep the healthcare system from getting fully overwhelmed and that means those who need critical care get critical care and get the support they need.
The mistake is that X can go down because through the lockdown medical know-how advances. Those who would have died on day 1 might not day on day 100 because of new drugs being used to combat it; because staff know the warning signs and what is going to happen better etc....
X can also go down if you get a vaccine; which means if you can prolong things long enough through lockdown you never reach the full X value.
Even if those who are at risk in group X don't take vaccines (eg allergic) they can at least be saved because the rest of the population is slow exposed and gets the vaccine so there's no carriers to infect others.
But he adds that caveat right here, he argues that if that does not occur the number is unchanged:
chaos0xomega wrote: The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X.
X remaining unchanged is based on the what if of that situation. The 'what if' he is making to demonstrate that X can never increase, only decrease. He is not making the argument that lockdowns don't work to reduce X, he is arguing that in a worst case scenario you never get an increased X with a lockdown.
This is just terrible logic and lack of understanding as to how things work. The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X. Lockdowns do not change X, lockdowns change the time it takes to reach X. A lockdown will not increase the number of people who will die from coronavirus - ever - it will only kick those deaths further into the future, with the hope that they can ultimately be avoided by way of the development of a vaccine or treatment before those lottery numbers come up. The simple fact of the matter is that coronavirus will spread through a largely fixed percentage of the population before reaching a herd immunity burnout point regardless of a lockdown, no amount of xenomancer claiming otherwise will change that.
I don't think this is totally true, or coronavirus would not be putting any strain on health services, only morgues. I agree that lockdowns do not change the number of cases over time, only spreading those cases out.
However, to say there is no affect on the number of deaths implies that healthcare can do nothing to improve the chances of survival for someone with COVID-19, which I think is incorrect. By spreading out the number of cases at any one time, the death rate should be reduced compared to allowing them to just pile in unchecked, because the healthcare resources available to each individual case are greater.
This is most obvious in examples like the hard hit regions of Italy, where the healthcare system was overwhelmed, but even without being overwhelmed the available resources are going to be greater and the level of care will likely be somewhat superior if healthcare systems are further away form breaking point.
If there is no difference to the total number of deaths with a lockdown, then there is zero point in admitting COVID patients to hospital because you are essentially saying the death rate is the same regardless of the level of treatment received.
While what you said is true, the benefit of the lockdown is already factored in as most/all of the data collected assumes available treatment capacity. We haven't really seen the "true" death toll of coronavirus in the absence of healthcare intervention, because nobody has (yet) had their healthcare system cease functioning in its entirety. Even in Italy where the system was overwhelmed they were still able to maintain a basic level of treatment for the vast majority of patients - while there were preventable deaths as a result of the capacity strain it does not (based on the data I have seen) seem to have resulted in a statistically significant deviation from data collected elsewhere.
I think what you are saying is right- there is a base number that cannot be saved from COVID- which is X- and that lockdowns allow N more cases to be saved through functioning healthcare.
N is largely already factored into X. Our mortality rate/IFR is based on data collected in situations in which (most) patients receive treatment before dying, ergo we cannot really improve on that number, short of a full treatment/cure/vaccine, which is essentially a magic bullet that ends the entire situation and is essentially an external factor to the system in the scenario being described, rather than an internal factor.
Hence the lockdown doesn't really reduce X, unless said magic bullet is identified and utilized - but in that case its not the *lockdown* that is reducing X, its the vaccine or cure. While the lockdown may buy us time to achieve said vaccine/cure, its not a guarantee and not a direct effect of the lockdown itself (though there are strong correlations between the two, basically the longer the lockdown lasts the greater the probability of identifying/developing a vaccine becomes).
Considering the original comment was in support of lockdowns happening, I think it is important to be clear on why lockdowns can improve the situation.
The original comment - i.e. not my comment but the comment that I accused of terrible logic - was *not*, at least by my understanding, in support of lockdowns happening. My comment was in support of lockdowns.
I think the part he was replying to in that quote pyramid was this bit by Xenomancers:
Correct.
The mistake is that X can go down because through the lockdown medical know-how advances. Those who would have died on day 1 might not day on day 100 because of new drugs being used to combat it; because staff know the warning signs and what is going to happen better etc....
No, I addressed that in my post:
it will only kick those deaths further into the future, with the hope that they can ultimately be avoided by way of the development of a vaccine or treatment before those lottery numbers come up.
X remaining unchanged is based on the what if of that situation. The 'what if' he is making to demonstrate that X can never increase, only decrease. He is not making the argument that lockdowns don't work to reduce X, he is arguing that in a worst case scenario you never get an increased X with a lockdown.
chaos0xomega wrote: While what you said is true, the benefit of the lockdown is already factored in as most/all of the data collected assumes available treatment capacity. We haven't really seen the "true" death toll of coronavirus in the absence of healthcare intervention, because nobody has (yet) had their healthcare system cease functioning in its entirety. Even in Italy where the system was overwhelmed they were still able to maintain a basic level of treatment for the vast majority of patients - while there were preventable deaths as a result of the capacity strain it does not (based on the data I have seen) seem to have resulted in a statistically significant deviation from data collected elsewhere.
Ok, that is interesting, I was under the impression there were regions that had experienced notably higher death tolls after they'd hit a certain caseload.
It will be interesting to see if the differences are statistically significant once the whole thing has passed and we have a lot more data to compare to.
------
Having thought about it some more, I also totally ignored the morbidity caused by COVID- we will have to wait some time I would think to know what affect the case rate and health service stress has on long term sequelae for COVID survivors.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But he adds that caveat right here, he argues that if that does not occur the number is unchanged:
chaos0xomega wrote: The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X.
X remaining unchanged is based on the what if of that situation. The 'what if' he is making to demonstrate that X can never increase, only decrease. He is not making the argument that lockdowns don't work to reduce X, he is arguing that in a worst case scenario you never get an increased X with a lockdown.
Which is false.
Virus needs an active carrier to spread disease. If you've been infected you can't be infected again. What is interesting about this virus is the people spreading the disease mostly and the ones dying from it aren't the same group of people. If you isolated the vulnerable (65+) for 1 month and allowed the non vulnerable to be exposed the virus would literally lose it's ability to spread quickly. 65+ people mostly are retired and live at home or in nursing homes it is fairly easy to execute this plan.
It's easy to miss how this would change X in this situation but I will explain it.
X essentially means number of vulnerable people exposed to the virus and a certain high % of them die. X goes down because the number of carriers over time goes down. Time increases your chance of being exposed to an active carrier because as time passes you come in contact with more people.
Lets say this unnamed 65 year old came in contact with 5 random people in a month but came in contact with 30 random people in 6 months. In my proposed plan the people the later 5 months are less likely to carry the virus because they have already been exposed. This in effect reduces X. When everyone goes on lock down you are not reducing the viruses chance to spread because you keep the potential carrier population large. Once you get to the point where each infected person does not average another infection - the virus dies in a few weeks.
This is how heard immunity works. It would be extremely effective against this virus to because the majority of people who are active and spread the virus will not die from it. Older people and sick people should isolate and protect themselves by all means. Forcing the non vulnerable to isolate literally kills people. ESP due to the fact most will be non symptomatic when they carry it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But he adds that caveat right here, he argues that if that does not occur the number is unchanged:
chaos0xomega wrote: The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X.
X remaining unchanged is based on the what if of that situation. The 'what if' he is making to demonstrate that X can never increase, only decrease. He is not making the argument that lockdowns don't work to reduce X, he is arguing that in a worst case scenario you never get an increased X with a lockdown.
Which is false.
Virus needs an active carrier to spread disease. If you've been infected you can't be infected again. What is interesting about this virus is the people spreading the disease mostly and the ones dying from it aren't the same group of people. If you isolated the vulnerable (65+) for 1 month and allowed the non vulnerable to be exposed the virus would literally lose it's ability to spread quickly. 65+ people mostly are retired and live at home or in nursing homes it is fairly easy to execute this plan.
It's easy to miss how this would change X in this situation but I will explain it.
X essentially means number of vulnerable people exposed to the virus and a certain high % of them die. X goes down because the number of carriers over time goes down. Time increases your chance of being exposed to an active carrier because as time passes you come in contact with more people.
Lets say this unnamed 65 year old came in contact with 5 random people in a month but came in contact with 30 random people in 6 months. In my proposed plan the people the later 5 months are less likely to carry the virus because they have already been exposed. This in effect reduces X. When everyone goes on lock down you are not reducing the viruses chance to spread because you keep the potential carrier population large. Once you get to the point where each infected person does not average another infection - the virus dies in a few weeks.
This is how heard immunity works. It would be extremely effective against this virus to because the majority of people who are active and spread the virus will not die from it. Older people and sick people should isolate and protect themselves by all means. Forcing the non vulnerable to isolate literally kills people. ESP due to the fact most will be non symptomatic when they carry it.
Sweden tried this. Sweden failed. It cost them many lives and is still costing them many lives.
Also, there are many conflicting reports about us gaining antibodies to fight off infection a second time. As far as the herd immunity, that mostly works because we have vaccines to back it up. To give us that immunity without having to risk infection. So, that is not how herd immunity works at all.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But he adds that caveat right here, he argues that if that does not occur the number is unchanged:
chaos0xomega wrote: The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X.
X remaining unchanged is based on the what if of that situation. The 'what if' he is making to demonstrate that X can never increase, only decrease. He is not making the argument that lockdowns don't work to reduce X, he is arguing that in a worst case scenario you never get an increased X with a lockdown.
Which is false.
Virus needs an active carrier to spread disease. If you've been infected you can't be infected again. What is interesting about this virus is the people spreading the disease mostly and the ones dying from it aren't the same group of people. If you isolated the vulnerable (65+) for 1 month and allowed the non vulnerable to be exposed the virus would literally lose it's ability to spread quickly. 65+ people mostly are retired and live at home or in nursing homes it is fairly easy to execute this plan.
It's easy to miss how this would change X in this situation but I will explain it.
X essentially means number of vulnerable people exposed to the virus and a certain high % of them die. X goes down because the number of carriers over time goes down. Time increases your chance of being exposed to an active carrier because as time passes you come in contact with more people.
Lets say this unnamed 65 year old came in contact with 5 random people in a month but came in contact with 30 random people in 6 months. In my proposed plan the people the later 5 months are less likely to carry the virus because they have already been exposed. This in effect reduces X. When everyone goes on lock down you are not reducing the viruses chance to spread because you keep the potential carrier population large. Once you get to the point where each infected person does not average another infection - the virus dies in a few weeks.
This is how heard immunity works. It would be extremely effective against this virus to because the majority of people who are active and spread the virus will not die from it. Older people and sick people should isolate and protect themselves by all means. Forcing the non vulnerable to isolate literally kills people. ESP due to the fact most will be non symptomatic when they carry it.
Sweden tried this. Sweden failed. It cost them many lives and is still costing them many lives.
Also, there are many conflicting reports about us gaining antibodies to fight off infection a second time. As far as the herd immunity, that mostly works because we have vaccines to back it up. To give us that immunity without having to risk infection. So, that is not how herd immunity works at all.
No. You can't possibly know if the approach worked yet. It takes time. collecting data takes time as does testing whole populations for a disease. Beyond the fact that most of these numbers across the world are being misrepresented for one reason or another. Lets just say all the number thus far were accurate. What % of the population has been exposed? No where near what is required to make these determinations.
In the case of Sweden it would be expected that they would have higher rates initially than other neighboring areas. Plus they did an absolutely horrible job of protecting the vulnerable so they are hardly a model for the strategy. Plus - this is completely ignoring the cost of the lockdown itself - which is also hard to measure immediately and admitably is likely also being misrepresented both ways due to the political nonsense. This is not political. It is logic. We as a people (as human beings) need to be able to use logic when making decisions with catastrophic ramifications.
If there are conflicting reports about gaining immunity after infection it should be front page news. From several credible sources I have seen more than enough to convince me those who are infected and recover gain immunity. Plus if that isn't true we are royally screwed anyways without a vaccine - which I work in the industry of clinical research. This stuff takes time. LONG time. More time than people can live in their houses. Plus as time passes the toll of the lockdown will become more apparent.
On a further note. To honestly compare the theories you have to be willing to look at two terribly bleek sets of data and chose which one is better. From a prospective of logic it is easy to do this. From the emotional prospective of most people - you are proclaimed evil for even suggesting it. It is absurd. It must stop.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But he adds that caveat right here, he argues that if that does not occur the number is unchanged:
chaos0xomega wrote: The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X.
X remaining unchanged is based on the what if of that situation. The 'what if' he is making to demonstrate that X can never increase, only decrease. He is not making the argument that lockdowns don't work to reduce X, he is arguing that in a worst case scenario you never get an increased X with a lockdown.
Which is false.
Virus needs an active carrier to spread disease. If you've been infected you can't be infected again. What is interesting about this virus is the people spreading the disease mostly and the ones dying from it aren't the same group of people. If you isolated the vulnerable (65+) for 1 month and allowed the non vulnerable to be exposed the virus would literally lose it's ability to spread quickly. 65+ people mostly are retired and live at home or in nursing homes it is fairly easy to execute this plan.
It's easy to miss how this would change X in this situation but I will explain it.
X essentially means number of vulnerable people exposed to the virus and a certain high % of them die. X goes down because the number of carriers over time goes down. Time increases your chance of being exposed to an active carrier because as time passes you come in contact with more people.
Lets say this unnamed 65 year old came in contact with 5 random people in a month but came in contact with 30 random people in 6 months. In my proposed plan the people the later 5 months are less likely to carry the virus because they have already been exposed. This in effect reduces X. When everyone goes on lock down you are not reducing the viruses chance to spread because you keep the potential carrier population large. Once you get to the point where each infected person does not average another infection - the virus dies in a few weeks.
This is how heard immunity works. It would be extremely effective against this virus to because the majority of people who are active and spread the virus will not die from it. Older people and sick people should isolate and protect themselves by all means. Forcing the non vulnerable to isolate literally kills people. ESP due to the fact most will be non symptomatic when they carry it.
This is literally nonsense. What, are you going to put all people over 65+ on an uninhabited island? Don't you understand that letting this spread uninhibited for a month will overload the healthcare system even with only healthy people under 65? This is a terrible way to make herd immunity work, because its completely unrealistic. You cannot just have it spread for a month, it will spread like wildfire and given the R rate and incubation time you're still talking about months if not years... This also ignores the fact that we have no idea if immunity is lasting or potentially only applicable for perhaps 2 years or so.
Unless you're arguing for a full on enforced quarantine like China has carried out to try and burn out the virus, but then in that sense this type of stricter lockdown still does not increase the number of deaths.
Xenomancers wrote: In the case of Sweden it would be expected that they would have higher rates initially than other neighboring areas. Plus they did an absolutely horrible job of protecting the vulnerable so they are hardly a model for the strategy. Plus - this is completely ignoring the cost of the lockdown itself - which is also hard to measure immediately and admitably is likely also being misrepresented both ways due to the political nonsense. This is not political. It is logic. We as a people (as human beings) need to be able to use logic when making decisions with catastrophic ramifications. .
Sweden is not doing so great and if a vaccine is found, it will have done worse at this rate. Add to this that Sweden is not having any better economic forecasts than the lockdown countries around it and there is no real argument for why Sweden is doing better. The cost of a lockdown, for better or worse is not very different from not having a lockdown, as Sweden demonstrates.
'Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial scale of the pandemic, suggested the decision to keep people indoors was motivated by 'panic' rather than the best science. '
'Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial scale of the pandemic, suggested the decision to keep people indoors was motivated by 'panic' rather than the best science. '
Stanford professor sounds nice, but looking into his background I don't really see what makes him qualified on this particular subject.
One concern I have is that the main thrust of the argument seems to be that he's disputing the casualty values for the study that the UK government used to aid justification of lockdowns. But he doesn't seem to be questioning any of the other lockdown studies being used in other countries to promote their choice of lockdown procedure.
Considering that many consider the UK launched lockdowns later than they could after first following the herd immunity science; its not surprising he might be able to make a case that the lockdown in the UK had less effect than it might otherwise have had.
That said it doesn't seem (at least in the mangled report on the report) that he's questioning other countries choices. Which to me would suggest that either there's a bunch the Daily Mail is leaving out (which is very likely); or that he's perhaps only targeting one study on some aspect of shaky ground (The death estimations) rather than on the policy of lockdowns in general. Since for the latter you'd expect a more comprehensive multinational survey.
Stanford professor sounds nice, but looking into his background I don't really see what makes him qualified on this particular subject.
From Wikipedia : appeal to authority.
'it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[33] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Overread wrote: One concern I have is that the main thrust of the argument seems to be that he's disputing the casualty values for the study that the UK government used to aid justification of lockdowns. But he doesn't seem to be questioning any of the other lockdown studies being used in other countries to promote their choice of lockdown procedure.
Considering that many consider the UK launched lockdowns later than they could after first following the herd immunity science; its not surprising he might be able to make a case that the lockdown in the UK had less effect than it might otherwise have had.
That said it doesn't seem (at least in the mangled report on the report) that he's questioning other countries choices. Which to me would suggest that either there's a bunch the Daily Mail is leaving out (which is very likely); or that he's perhaps only targeting one study on some aspect of shaky ground (The death estimations) rather than on the policy of lockdowns in general. Since for the latter you'd expect a more comprehensive multinational survey.
Fair enough. You have to admit that the ICL model could have some serious flaws though? It predicted 500 000 deaths in the UK alone, when so far there are about 350 000 confirmed deaths in the entire world?
Stanford professor sounds nice, but looking into his background I don't really see what makes him qualified on this particular subject.
From Wikipedia : appeal to authority.
'it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[33] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.'
Vice versa getting advice from a Person not qualifierd or which Qualifications can be doubted is also a fallacy.
Aka an appeal to an biased authorithy or impropper one.
So what sort of fallacy is it when you advocate for a chemistry teacher who has so far nothing to substantiate his ideas other than he predicted numbers lower than the officially reported numbers of China prior to any sort of recurrence of disease purely because it supports your ideology rather than any sort of real credibility?
Stanford professor sounds nice, but looking into his background I don't really see what makes him qualified on this particular subject.
From Wikipedia : appeal to authority.
'it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[33] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.'
Levitt spent 1963 studying applied mathematics at the University of Pretoria. He attended King's College London, graduating with a first-class honours degree in Physics in 1967...
Levitt was one of the first researchers to conduct molecular dynamics simulations of DNA and proteins and developed the first software for this purpose. He is currently well known for developing approaches to predict macromolecular structures, having participated in many Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) competitions, where he criticised molecular dynamics for inability to refine protein structures. He has also worked on simplified representations of protein structure for analysing folding and packing, as well as developing scoring systems for large-scale sequence-structure comparisons.
As impressive as the man's resume is, saying Stanford professor is a massive appeal to authority for someone without a relevant background in epidemiology, so well noted!
Disciple of Fate wrote: As impressive as the man's resume is, saying Stanford professor is a massive appeal to authority for someone without a relevant background in epidemiology, so well noted!
It's true. I remember when I pointed something similar about Bill Nye, but I just got called a bigot.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But he adds that caveat right here, he argues that if that does not occur the number is unchanged:
chaos0xomega wrote: The number of people that will die from coronavirus, in the absence of a vaccine or some effective cure or treatment is X.
X remaining unchanged is based on the what if of that situation. The 'what if' he is making to demonstrate that X can never increase, only decrease. He is not making the argument that lockdowns don't work to reduce X, he is arguing that in a worst case scenario you never get an increased X with a lockdown.
Which is false.
Virus needs an active carrier to spread disease. If you've been infected you can't be infected again. What is interesting about this virus is the people spreading the disease mostly and the ones dying from it aren't the same group of people. If you isolated the vulnerable (65+) for 1 month and allowed the non vulnerable to be exposed the virus would literally lose it's ability to spread quickly. 65+ people mostly are retired and live at home or in nursing homes it is fairly easy to execute this plan.
It's easy to miss how this would change X in this situation but I will explain it.
X essentially means number of vulnerable people exposed to the virus and a certain high % of them die. X goes down because the number of carriers over time goes down. Time increases your chance of being exposed to an active carrier because as time passes you come in contact with more people.
Lets say this unnamed 65 year old came in contact with 5 random people in a month but came in contact with 30 random people in 6 months. In my proposed plan the people the later 5 months are less likely to carry the virus because they have already been exposed. This in effect reduces X. When everyone goes on lock down you are not reducing the viruses chance to spread because you keep the potential carrier population large. Once you get to the point where each infected person does not average another infection - the virus dies in a few weeks.
This is how heard immunity works. It would be extremely effective against this virus to because the majority of people who are active and spread the virus will not die from it. Older people and sick people should isolate and protect themselves by all means. Forcing the non vulnerable to isolate literally kills people. ESP due to the fact most will be non symptomatic when they carry it.
Sweden tried this. Sweden failed. It cost them many lives and is still costing them many lives.
Also, there are many conflicting reports about us gaining antibodies to fight off infection a second time. As far as the herd immunity, that mostly works because we have vaccines to back it up. To give us that immunity without having to risk infection. So, that is not how herd immunity works at all.
No. You can't possibly know if the approach worked yet. It takes time. collecting data takes time as does testing whole populations for a disease. Beyond the fact that most of these numbers across the world are being misrepresented for one reason or another. Lets just say all the number thus far were accurate. What % of the population has been exposed? No where near what is required to make these determinations.
In the case of Sweden it would be expected that they would have higher rates initially than other neighboring areas. Plus they did an absolutely horrible job of protecting the vulnerable so they are hardly a model for the strategy. Plus - this is completely ignoring the cost of the lockdown itself - which is also hard to measure immediately and admitably is likely also being misrepresented both ways due to the political nonsense. This is not political. It is logic. We as a people (as human beings) need to be able to use logic when making decisions with catastrophic ramifications.
If there are conflicting reports about gaining immunity after infection it should be front page news. From several credible sources I have seen more than enough to convince me those who are infected and recover gain immunity. Plus if that isn't true we are royally screwed anyways without a vaccine - which I work in the industry of clinical research. This stuff takes time. LONG time. More time than people can live in their houses. Plus as time passes the toll of the lockdown will become more apparent.
On a further note. To honestly compare the theories you have to be willing to look at two terribly bleek sets of data and chose which one is better. From a prospective of logic it is easy to do this. From the emotional prospective of most people - you are proclaimed evil for even suggesting it. It is absurd. It must stop.
You do understand that by opening back up, we are risking entire work forces getting sick and having to shut down, right? We are risking overloading an already burdened medical system and pushing more death than needs to be.
Get out in the field. See what happens when a hospital staff gets overburdened/overworked. Mistakes happen quickly and they are very costly.
Virus needs an active carrier to spread disease. If you've been infected you can't be infected again.
This is conjectural. While that is how many viruses work that is not how all viruses work. Science says this is likely the case for COVID, but there is still data implying otherwise.
If you isolated the vulnerable (65+) for 1 month and allowed the non vulnerable to be exposed the virus would literally lose it's ability to spread quickly. 65+ people mostly are retired and live at home or in nursing homes it is fairly easy to execute this plan.
This is a fantasy that cannot happen in reality. You cannot magically section off a segment of the population by age. Who do you think is caring for the elderly? Its predominantly people in their 20s through 40s.
X essentially means number of vulnerable people exposed to the virus and a certain high % of them die. X goes down because the number of carriers over time goes down. Time increases your chance of being exposed to an active carrier because as time passes you come in contact with more people.
Lets say this unnamed 65 year old came in contact with 5 random people in a month but came in contact with 30 random people in 6 months. In my proposed plan the people the later 5 months are less likely to carry the virus because they have already been exposed. This in effect reduces X. When everyone goes on lock down you are not reducing the viruses chance to spread because you keep the potential carrier population large. Once you get to the point where each infected person does not average another infection - the virus dies in a few weeks.
If you're going to try to explain "how something works" it would help if you understood what it is you're explaining and how, on a really basic level, reality works.
This is such an absolutely stupid argument that you made. I'm honestly incredibly distraught that you took the time to type this out and could not comprehend on a really basic level where the big gaping logical hole is. Like, you've completely failed to comprehend the basic function of what SOCIAL DISTANCING means. It means MINIMIZING your contact with others. An unnamed 65 year old person will come into contact with 5 random people per month over 6 months for a total of 30 people under a distancing scenario. Under a non-distancing/non-lockdown scenario the unnamed 65 year old will come into contact with 5 HUNDRED people per month for a total of 3,000 people over the same time period. I.E. Social distancing reduces the unnamed 65 year olds contact and thus makes him *less* likely to be exposed to an active carrier, because over time you come into contact with *less* people.
Additionally, due to the lockdown, the number of "active carriers" during any given point in time is drastically reduced - the whole point is to maintain a case count as close to zero as possible for as long as possible - so not only does the unnamed 65 year old come into contact with 1/100th the number of individuals he would have if he hadn't socially distanced, but the probability that any of the 30 people he encounters has the virus is itself a fraction of the probability that one of the 3,000 people he would have encountered otherwise has it. I.E. 1 in 30 might have the virus under the distancing scenario, whereas in the non-distancing scenario the number is more like 1,500.
And theres no time discount here, by the way. Based on the data we have collected its estimated that in an uncontrolled scenario the virus would be active for 6-9 months before it reached a herd immunity tipping point. One month of isolation for senior citizens would not cut it at all.
No. You can't possibly know if the approach worked yet. It takes time. collecting data takes time as does testing whole populations for a disease. Beyond the fact that most of these numbers across the world are being misrepresented for one reason or another. Lets just say all the number thus far were accurate. What % of the population has been exposed? No where near what is required to make these determinations.
We've collected enough data at this point to know that it hasn't worked. Sweden expected 20-25% of the population to have been exposed by this point, statistcal analysis of randomly sampled antibody tests determined that 7.3% of Stockholms population had been infected/showed antibodies, and the number outside of Stockholm was lower, slightly above 1%. Swedens deaths per capita was already almost 10x higher than that of its neighbors (many of which are more densely populated than Sweden itself is and thus should have seen a much bigger impact from the virus), but right now they are seeing something like 500 deaths per week from COVID, whereas their neighbor Norway is only seeing 7. Mind you, Norway has a population of about 5 million compared to Swedens 10, but you're still talking a couple orders of magnitude in difference between the two. It should not be that large. Their deaths per capita is offically higher than the US - 36 for them, vs 27 for us, and unlike the US Swedens curve is not bending and that number is not slowing down or decreasing. Statistically and mathematically speaking, there is no future point in which the situation in Sweden suddenly becomes "successful" under these circumstances. No amount of "collect more data over time" will improve these figures based on the established trends.
This situation gets even worse if a vaccine is identified, as Sweden is currently trending towards another 30k deaths over the course of the next year. Norway, Denmark, and Finland are trending towards less than 1000 each. In effect Seden will have killed 30,000+ people unnecessarily, whereas the other 3 nations will have likely saved the lives of tens of thousands, each.
More importantly, almost half of Swedens deaths have come from the elderly, despite the fact that the majority of stringent measures enacted by the Swedish government were intended to isolate and protect the elderly. Why? Because its not possible to isolate an 80 year old when they are reliant on 20 and 30 year olds for care.
In the case of Sweden it would be expected that they would have higher rates initially than other neighboring areas
You would expect the numbers in Sweden to be 2-3x higher, not 17x higher (Norway), 7x better (Denmark), or 13x higher (Finland). In the comparison between the 4 nations, we find that Denmark, in particular, has a population density about 5.5x higher than Swedens - Denmark should, based on density-trends we've seen elsewhere, be the hardest hit of the 4 nations, and yet it isn't, in large part because Denmark has successfully suppressed the virus through lockdown measures, whereas Sweden has not.
Plus they did an absolutely horrible job of protecting the vulnerable so they are hardly a model for the strategy.
And yet thats the only thing they actually really attempted to do - it didn't work, not because they did a gak job, but because its an unrealistic scenario.
Plus - this is completely ignoring the cost of the lockdown itself - which is also hard to measure immediately and admitably is likely also being misrepresented both ways due to the political nonsense.
Sweden is projected to have a 7-10% hit to its GDP in 2020 as a result of COVID based on economic data they have collected thus far, the US is expected to have a 4-8% hit based on current data for CY2020. So, it seems that not only has Sweden failed from a healthcare standpoint, but also an economic standpoint.
This is not political. It is logic
You haven't used an ounce of valid logic in your entire argument, which leads me to believe its mostly political and you're going to extreme lengths of rationalization and cognitive dissonance to try to justify your position.
Q_A_R wrote:Fair enough. You have to admit that the ICL model could have some serious flaws though? It predicted 500 000 deaths in the UK alone, when so far there are about 350 000 confirmed deaths in the entire world?
I pointed this out 10-20 pages ago, but I'll restate it again. The ICL model predicted 500k deaths as a WORST CASE SCENARIO where everything went wrong.
The ICL model has actually born out to be reasonably accurate, the 1.1-2.2 million death figure that was reported was always the worst case "do nothing" scenario in which governments took zero response whatsoever and individuals made no changes to their behavior - which was already essentially obsolete when it was published because by that time governments globally had already taken steps to address the crisis and individual behavior had already altered in an unforseen and unprecedented manner. The model *always* included more conservative scenarios with varying degrees of individual and governmental response that indicated a lower number of deaths - anyone who spent more than 5 seconds glancing at headlines already knew this and was aware of it, your own ignorance of it is not indicative of a failure on the part of the model. https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/
Contrary to what you may have read or heard, British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson has not suddenly reduced his worst-case projection of COVID-19 deaths in the U.K. by a factor of 28. To the contrary, he says the policies adopted by the British government, which are in line with the aggressive control measures recommended by a highly influential March 16 paper that Ferguson and other researchers at Imperial College wrote, should keep the number of deaths below 20,000.
"We assessed in that report…that fatalities would probably be unlikely to exceed about 20,000 with effectively a lockdown, a social distancing strategy," Ferguson, who is himself recovering from COVID-19, told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday. "But it could be substantially lower than that."
As a note, the UK has seen 32k deaths so far - the paper was calculated on the basis of Great Britain rather than the UK, I don't have stats for GB specifically, but it seems like if anything the results derived from the ILC model were *too* conservative, as GB/the UK have exceeded the 20,000 figure by 50%, though the 32k figure is still very squarely within the range of likely values within the various mitigation scenarios presented - i.e. the Imperial War College model is actually scarily accurate.
In reality, the only major model that has really been wrong has been the IHME model used by the Trump administration which predicted 70,000 deaths in the US by August (newsflash, we've already exceeded that number) - in large part because it doesn't* actually model the virus at all but attempts to project results by extrapolating data from the performance of other countries and fitting it to a curve - which brings me back to a previous point: if every country followed the same curve regardless of action, then the IHME model would be right and would not have needed to be revised multiple times (with the latest going from 70k deaths by august to 134k deaths by august).
*The model was revised - and I mean, revised, completely changed from the ground up - recently to take disease transmission rates and epedemiological modeling and data into account rather than just trying to extrapolate from aggregate performance. Ultimately, this means the model was as wrong as wrong could be.
So no. The ICL study did not have "serious flaws". Perhaps your understanding of the study had serious flaws, but the study itself is and has been "on the money" thus far. Now, if you wanted to say that the MEDIA COVERAGE of the study had serious flaws, then I would agree with you, as you heard a hell of a lot about the worst case scenario 500k dead, but next to nothing about the mid/low range estimates of the study.
Sometimes there are lines of reasoning or discussion in a thread which are so 'oversimplified' that trying to engage them drags the content of posts away from quality conversation and into constant circles of re-explaining concepts that should be basic knowledge.
Stanford professor sounds nice, but looking into his background I don't really see what makes him qualified on this particular subject.
From Wikipedia : appeal to authority.
'it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[33] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.'
Levitt spent 1963 studying applied mathematics at the University of Pretoria. He attended King's College London, graduating with a first-class honours degree in Physics in 1967...
Levitt was one of the first researchers to conduct molecular dynamics simulations of DNA and proteins and developed the first software for this purpose. He is currently well known for developing approaches to predict macromolecular structures, having participated in many Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) competitions, where he criticised molecular dynamics for inability to refine protein structures. He has also worked on simplified representations of protein structure for analysing folding and packing, as well as developing scoring systems for large-scale sequence-structure comparisons.
As impressive as the man's resume is, saying Stanford professor is a massive appeal to authority for someone without a relevant background in epidemiology, so well noted!
I'm aware of what an appeal to authority is. I wasn't appealing to his authority to prove anything. I merely linked an article, presenting no opinion on the matter either way. Then I pointed out the fallacy in your dismissal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: So what sort of fallacy is it when you advocate for a chemistry teacher who has so far nothing to substantiate his ideas other than he predicted numbers lower than the officially reported numbers of China prior to any sort of recurrence of disease purely because it supports your ideology rather than any sort of real credibility?
I didn't present him as any proof for anything, so none. Also, you're engaging in the very same fallacy.
Lockdowns work. Tighter and earlier lockdowns work better. See China and New Zealand.
To get out of lockdown you need a good test, trace and isolate system.
Even South Korea is having some trouble with new hotspots, despite having an early tight lockdown and a very strong TTI system.
South Korea's new outbreaks are hundreds or low thousands of people. Hopefully that is controllable.
The problem with the economy is two things. Firstly that we live in a globalised world where every country is to some degree dependent on other countries. More importantly, every advanced economy is based largely on services, not manufacturing. Lots of service industries are crippled by social distancing.
We got told lockdown was to flatten the curve and protect the NHS. Turns out now that there are other criteria to get out of it. Which is fair enough, but the gov could've at least been transparent about it.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm aware of what an appeal to authority is. I wasn't appealing to his authority to prove anything. I merely linked an article, presenting no opinion on the matter either way. Then I pointed out the fallacy in your dismissal.
I'm pointing out that the article you quote starts off with an appeal to authority. Introducing him as a Stanford professor is pretty misleading given that his background doesn't give him any particular expertise on said subject. Its like saying you're about to be operated on by a doctor, which turns out they got their doctorate in literature. Sure they might do a good job, but there is also this horde of qualified doctors saying the opposite. The fact that you don't find that piece of information relevant but respond with a wikipedia quote doesn't really make that my mistake.
Given the fact that his prediction matches official Chinese numbers is even more questionable, as the expectation is that those numbers are downplayed by a significant factor (some observers believe it may be in the tens of thousands.)
See, if you'd just gone to that straight away, that would be fine. but outright dismissal based on his credentials or lack thereof is the fallacy.
your equivalency doesn't really hold water either. Someone pointing out flaws in scientific data with or without appropriate credentials, is not remotely comparable to performing a surgical operation without the correct training. And that I didnt automatically work out some sort of (false) equivalency to then apply to my own point is definitely not a valid line of reasoning either.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've just ordered a slab of Brewdog's latest beer -- Barnard Castle Eye Test.
That is pretty funny. thats the one part of his story that seems a bit absurd.
QAR, my equivalency wasn't about capability, its about misleading the audience. By using the term "Stanford professor" without any qualifier, you're creating the impression to a reader that this is going to be the opinion of a man who knows what he is talking about. If I told you I was going to be operated on by a doctor, you wouldn't expect me to go to a person who got their doctorate in literature. Its an intentionally misleading way of presenting an opinion as better by referencing credentials that are irrelevant. With enough training and education, a local fry cook could point out flaws in scientific data, but if you write "... local fry cook thinks" most people would likely close the article.
As for this man, googling brings up no real study of this man himself. As far as can see he just gives opinions that just happened to corrospond with what China is officially saying. If you as a person get proven right by the Chinese government, that usually should give you pause, given that the massage almost any number in any field for PR reasons. As I said, the "doctor" might do a good job, as seems to have happened in his off the cuff prediction coming true by official Chinese standards, but being 'right'then does not suddenly make his opinion more valuable as it might be a once off (based on very shaky foundations).
queen_annes_revenge wrote: See, if you'd just gone to that straight away, that would be fine. but outright dismissal based on his credentials or lack thereof is the fallacy.
your equivalency doesn't really hold water either. Someone pointing out flaws in scientific data with or without appropriate credentials, is not remotely comparable to performing a surgical operation without the correct training. And that I didnt automatically work out some sort of (false) equivalency to then apply to my own point is definitely not a valid line of reasoning either.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've just ordered a slab of Brewdog's latest beer -- Barnard Castle Eye Test.
That is pretty funny. thats the one part of his story that seems a bit absurd.
Not being unable to find childcare within two streets of two immediate relatives, being unable to secure help as one of the most powerful people in country, he and his wife publishing totally different narratives before he was caught out, or not just getting his wife to drive home?
Track and trace starting today in England and Wales. Tracers saying last night that no one has told them they are starting - presumably because outs been rushed out ahead of time to try and shift attention away from Cummings. Nothing but the most careful, science-led strategy here!
Pushing it out early seems a really bad idea given it's built upon asking members of the public showing no symptoms to self-isolate whilst 'instinct is fine' is still all over the news.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news the UK is now sitting with the highest death rate amongst nations with comparable published data.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: We got told lockdown was to flatten the curve and protect the NHS. Turns out now that there are other criteria to get out of it. Which is fair enough, but the gov could've at least been transparent about it.
Government messaging and leadership has been poor throughout. They've tried to control the crisis with slogans and spin, when it needs an integrated public health approach.
Missed targets again and again, after setting them for themselves. Remember the 84 tons of PPE from Turkey, which was delayed for several days, when it arrived there was only half of it because they didn't send a big enough place to fetch it, then on testing the material failed spec.
The promise to deliver 100,000 daily tests by the end of April, which was achieved by counting 43,000 postal kits sent out the day before.
The daily press conference with the death stats graph, which quietly disappeared when it started to be obvious the plan hadn't worked, just that deaths were being under-reported.
I expect the new Test and Track system to fail at first too. The app is an integral part of it, and it doesn't work on several levels. We'll probably end up using the Apple and Chrome apps by the end of June. Then maybe it will start to work.
Ironically the one good piece of messaging they did was Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives. Then they abandoned that in favour of Stay Alert, something something, something something else.
Part of the issue is that they are trying to avoid looking like the economy is their only interest in regard to sending people back to work. So instead of a clear message of "remain in lockdown, permitted only to go to work or gather food" turns into "remain vigilant and sort of only go to work and do essentials, but at the same time you can sort of go out sometimes if you're sensible and if the rest of the country isn't going to the same place etc..."
So instead of a clear message its sort of garbled into a very lax sounding lockdown The result of which it becomes increasingly easy for people to break lockdown. Once broken another and another and another get added. One trip to the garden centre turns to two then three then you're going out just to go out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've just ordered a slab of Brewdog's latest beer -- Barnard Castle Eye Test.
That is pretty funny. thats the one part of his story that seems a bit absurd.
It's dodgy way before that. Cummings went home from work to see his wife, who was showing symptoms. He then returned to work, before travelling up north that evening.
Either she was symptomatic, and he should have begun isolation from the moment he returned home - in which case he broke lockdown by returning to work afterwards.
Or she was not symptomatic, and the whole trip up to Durham was unnecessary and a breach of lockdown.
Merely having a child is not the massive extenuating circumstance his story has made out.
My personal take on this is that this was a trip he'd had planned all along for his wife's birthday (which coincided with the Barnard Castle eye-test jaunt) and the whole story from start to finish is bollocks he concocted with Boris as a vaguely plausible story to get him off the hook once it was reported he'd been spotted.
After Weston-super-Mare hospital closed to new patients earlier this week, it now turns out that of their staff treating their covid 19 patients. 40% of them have tested positive for the virus.
That's kind of shocking. We know it spreads very easily, but that sounds like a very high number of medical staff going down with it.
Though I've not kept up with infection rates in other hospitals - it might be normal showing how easily its spread or perhaps Weston Super Mare had some issue with PPE or policies (or both) which allowed it to spread so fast through their staff.
Of course it could also be that within the Covid wing restrictions were good, but that it was patients entering without knowing they had it spreading the infection to staff that way and then it spread through staff channels (which would highlight a weakness in staff interaction policies/safety).
Also that number is likely go higher as they test more staff. Losing nearly 50% or perhaps more staff over 2 weeks whilst also dealing with a rise in Covid cases and shutting down regular medical cover - that's exactly what lockdowns were aiming to avoid happening nationally to the system. Hopefully if there's any cover in other regions that isn't so heavily overwhelmed they can move staff around. Still its a sign of what could have happened to the medical system at large
So for those of you mandating that vaccines should be mandatory - what about those of us that can’t get any?
I have severe allergy to eggs, which prevents me from being able to get vaccines at all, or I could die.
Do I no longer get to have a job because in making others ‘safe’ I could die instead?
Vaccine or no vaccine, it’s not so black and white folks. There are some of us that simply can’t ever get a vaccine, but does that mean I lose my rights to work because I’m a ‘danger’ for not being vaccinated?
Overread wrote: Part of the issue is that they are trying to avoid looking like the economy is their only interest in regard to sending people back to work. So instead of a clear message of "remain in lockdown, permitted only to go to work or gather food" turns into "remain vigilant and sort of only go to work and do essentials, but at the same time you can sort of go out sometimes if you're sensible and if the rest of the country isn't going to the same place etc..."
So instead of a clear message its sort of garbled into a very lax sounding lockdown The result of which it becomes increasingly easy for people to break lockdown. Once broken another and another and another get added. One trip to the garden centre turns to two then three then you're going out just to go out.
It looks like they don't really care about even pretending they care about workers, or, as a member of the government called them, human capital stock.
Ghool wrote: So for those of you mandating that vaccines should be mandatory - what about those of us that can’t get any? I have severe allergy to eggs, which prevents me from being able to get vaccines at all, or I could die.
Do I no longer get to have a job because in making others ‘safe’ I could die instead?
Vaccine or no vaccine, it’s not so black and white folks. There are some of us that simply can’t ever get a vaccine, but does that mean I lose my rights to work because I’m a ‘danger’ for not being vaccinated?
Vaccines which are not made from eggs are possible and available.
Also, even when vaccines have been manufactured using eggs, it is possible they will not trigger your allergy.
Ghool wrote: So for those of you mandating that vaccines should be mandatory - what about those of us that can’t get any?
I have severe allergy to eggs, which prevents me from being able to get vaccines at all, or I could die.
That's a built in part of the process. Its part of the point of mass vaccination, in fact. You take the ones you can get safely, and widespread vaccines in the rest of the population protects *you* as a vulnerable member of society.
The more people 'opt out,' the more at risk you are, children to young too take vaccines are, and other vulnerable people are. That's exactly why it is important that everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated.
But, as our next chart shows, there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities — a measure that looks at the overall number of deaths compared with normal trends.
In Europe, roughly three groups of countries emerge in terms of fatalities. One group, including the U.K., the Netherlands and Spain, experienced extremely high excess mortality. Another, encompassing Sweden and Switzerland, suffered many more deaths than usual, but significantly less than the first group. Finally, there were countries where deaths remained within a normal range such as Greece and Germany.
Yet the data show that the relative strictness of a country’s containment measures had little bearing on its membership in any of the three groups above. While Germany had milder restrictions than Italy, it has been much more successful in containing the virus.
The overall impression is that while restrictions on movement were seen as a necessary tool to halt the spread of the virus, when and how they were wielded was more important than their severity. Early preparation, and plentiful health-care resources, were enough for several countries to avoid draconian lockdowns. Germany, with better testing and contact tracing and more intensive care units than its neighbors, could afford to keep the economy a bit more open. Greece, by acting quickly and surely, appears to have avoided the worst, so far.
Virus needs an active carrier to spread disease. If you've been infected you can't be infected again.
This is conjectural. While that is how many viruses work that is not how all viruses work. Science says this is likely the case for COVID, but there is still data implying otherwise.
If you isolated the vulnerable (65+) for 1 month and allowed the non vulnerable to be exposed the virus would literally lose it's ability to spread quickly. 65+ people mostly are retired and live at home or in nursing homes it is fairly easy to execute this plan.
This is a fantasy that cannot happen in reality. You cannot magically section off a segment of the population by age. Who do you think is caring for the elderly? Its predominantly people in their 20s through 40s.
X essentially means number of vulnerable people exposed to the virus and a certain high % of them die. X goes down because the number of carriers over time goes down. Time increases your chance of being exposed to an active carrier because as time passes you come in contact with more people.
Lets say this unnamed 65 year old came in contact with 5 random people in a month but came in contact with 30 random people in 6 months. In my proposed plan the people the later 5 months are less likely to carry the virus because they have already been exposed. This in effect reduces X. When everyone goes on lock down you are not reducing the viruses chance to spread because you keep the potential carrier population large. Once you get to the point where each infected person does not average another infection - the virus dies in a few weeks.
If you're going to try to explain "how something works" it would help if you understood what it is you're explaining and how, on a really basic level, reality works.
This is such an absolutely stupid argument that you made. I'm honestly incredibly distraught that you took the time to type this out and could not comprehend on a really basic level where the big gaping logical hole is. Like, you've completely failed to comprehend the basic function of what SOCIAL DISTANCING means. It means MINIMIZING your contact with others. An unnamed 65 year old person will come into contact with 5 random people per month over 6 months for a total of 30 people under a distancing scenario. Under a non-distancing/non-lockdown scenario the unnamed 65 year old will come into contact with 5 HUNDRED people per month for a total of 3,000 people over the same time period. I.E. Social distancing reduces the unnamed 65 year olds contact and thus makes him *less* likely to be exposed to an active carrier, because over time you come into contact with *less* people.
Additionally, due to the lockdown, the number of "active carriers" during any given point in time is drastically reduced - the whole point is to maintain a case count as close to zero as possible for as long as possible - so not only does the unnamed 65 year old come into contact with 1/100th the number of individuals he would have if he hadn't socially distanced, but the probability that any of the 30 people he encounters has the virus is itself a fraction of the probability that one of the 3,000 people he would have encountered otherwise has it. I.E. 1 in 30 might have the virus under the distancing scenario, whereas in the non-distancing scenario the number is more like 1,500.
And theres no time discount here, by the way. Based on the data we have collected its estimated that in an uncontrolled scenario the virus would be active for 6-9 months before it reached a herd immunity tipping point. One month of isolation for senior citizens would not cut it at all.
No. You can't possibly know if the approach worked yet. It takes time. collecting data takes time as does testing whole populations for a disease. Beyond the fact that most of these numbers across the world are being misrepresented for one reason or another. Lets just say all the number thus far were accurate. What % of the population has been exposed? No where near what is required to make these determinations.
We've collected enough data at this point to know that it hasn't worked. Sweden expected 20-25% of the population to have been exposed by this point, statistcal analysis of randomly sampled antibody tests determined that 7.3% of Stockholms population had been infected/showed antibodies, and the number outside of Stockholm was lower, slightly above 1%. Swedens deaths per capita was already almost 10x higher than that of its neighbors (many of which are more densely populated than Sweden itself is and thus should have seen a much bigger impact from the virus), but right now they are seeing something like 500 deaths per week from COVID, whereas their neighbor Norway is only seeing 7. Mind you, Norway has a population of about 5 million compared to Swedens 10, but you're still talking a couple orders of magnitude in difference between the two. It should not be that large. Their deaths per capita is offically higher than the US - 36 for them, vs 27 for us, and unlike the US Swedens curve is not bending and that number is not slowing down or decreasing. Statistically and mathematically speaking, there is no future point in which the situation in Sweden suddenly becomes "successful" under these circumstances. No amount of "collect more data over time" will improve these figures based on the established trends.
This situation gets even worse if a vaccine is identified, as Sweden is currently trending towards another 30k deaths over the course of the next year. Norway, Denmark, and Finland are trending towards less than 1000 each. In effect Seden will have killed 30,000+ people unnecessarily, whereas the other 3 nations will have likely saved the lives of tens of thousands, each.
More importantly, almost half of Swedens deaths have come from the elderly, despite the fact that the majority of stringent measures enacted by the Swedish government were intended to isolate and protect the elderly. Why? Because its not possible to isolate an 80 year old when they are reliant on 20 and 30 year olds for care.
In the case of Sweden it would be expected that they would have higher rates initially than other neighboring areas
You would expect the numbers in Sweden to be 2-3x higher, not 17x higher (Norway), 7x better (Denmark), or 13x higher (Finland). In the comparison between the 4 nations, we find that Denmark, in particular, has a population density about 5.5x higher than Swedens - Denmark should, based on density-trends we've seen elsewhere, be the hardest hit of the 4 nations, and yet it isn't, in large part because Denmark has successfully suppressed the virus through lockdown measures, whereas Sweden has not.
Plus they did an absolutely horrible job of protecting the vulnerable so they are hardly a model for the strategy.
And yet thats the only thing they actually really attempted to do - it didn't work, not because they did a gak job, but because its an unrealistic scenario.
Plus - this is completely ignoring the cost of the lockdown itself - which is also hard to measure immediately and admitably is likely also being misrepresented both ways due to the political nonsense.
Sweden is projected to have a 7-10% hit to its GDP in 2020 as a result of COVID based on economic data they have collected thus far, the US is expected to have a 4-8% hit based on current data for CY2020. So, it seems that not only has Sweden failed from a healthcare standpoint, but also an economic standpoint.
This is not political. It is logic
You haven't used an ounce of valid logic in your entire argument, which leads me to believe its mostly political and you're going to extreme lengths of rationalization and cognitive dissonance to try to justify your position.
Q_A_R wrote:Fair enough. You have to admit that the ICL model could have some serious flaws though? It predicted 500 000 deaths in the UK alone, when so far there are about 350 000 confirmed deaths in the entire world?
I pointed this out 10-20 pages ago, but I'll restate it again. The ICL model predicted 500k deaths as a WORST CASE SCENARIO where everything went wrong.
The ICL model has actually born out to be reasonably accurate, the 1.1-2.2 million death figure that was reported was always the worst case "do nothing" scenario in which governments took zero response whatsoever and individuals made no changes to their behavior - which was already essentially obsolete when it was published because by that time governments globally had already taken steps to address the crisis and individual behavior had already altered in an unforseen and unprecedented manner. The model *always* included more conservative scenarios with varying degrees of individual and governmental response that indicated a lower number of deaths - anyone who spent more than 5 seconds glancing at headlines already knew this and was aware of it, your own ignorance of it is not indicative of a failure on the part of the model. https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/
Contrary to what you may have read or heard, British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson has not suddenly reduced his worst-case projection of COVID-19 deaths in the U.K. by a factor of 28. To the contrary, he says the policies adopted by the British government, which are in line with the aggressive control measures recommended by a highly influential March 16 paper that Ferguson and other researchers at Imperial College wrote, should keep the number of deaths below 20,000.
"We assessed in that report…that fatalities would probably be unlikely to exceed about 20,000 with effectively a lockdown, a social distancing strategy," Ferguson, who is himself recovering from COVID-19, told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday. "But it could be substantially lower than that."
As a note, the UK has seen 32k deaths so far - the paper was calculated on the basis of Great Britain rather than the UK, I don't have stats for GB specifically, but it seems like if anything the results derived from the ILC model were *too* conservative, as GB/the UK have exceeded the 20,000 figure by 50%, though the 32k figure is still very squarely within the range of likely values within the various mitigation scenarios presented - i.e. the Imperial War College model is actually scarily accurate.
In reality, the only major model that has really been wrong has been the IHME model used by the Trump administration which predicted 70,000 deaths in the US by August (newsflash, we've already exceeded that number) - in large part because it doesn't* actually model the virus at all but attempts to project results by extrapolating data from the performance of other countries and fitting it to a curve - which brings me back to a previous point: if every country followed the same curve regardless of action, then the IHME model would be right and would not have needed to be revised multiple times (with the latest going from 70k deaths by august to 134k deaths by august).
*The model was revised - and I mean, revised, completely changed from the ground up - recently to take disease transmission rates and epedemiological modeling and data into account rather than just trying to extrapolate from aggregate performance. Ultimately, this means the model was as wrong as wrong could be.
So no. The ICL study did not have "serious flaws". Perhaps your understanding of the study had serious flaws, but the study itself is and has been "on the money" thus far. Now, if you wanted to say that the MEDIA COVERAGE of the study had serious flaws, then I would agree with you, as you heard a hell of a lot about the worst case scenario 500k dead, but next to nothing about the mid/low range estimates of the study.
Yeah as far as I'm aware that korean study basically found that you can be expelling dead virus from your cells for months after recovery, resulting in positive test results. These dead cells were not infectious and none of the people studied infected anyone else during that time.
But, as our next chart shows, there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities — a measure that looks at the overall number of deaths compared with normal trends.
In Europe, roughly three groups of countries emerge in terms of fatalities. One group, including the U.K., the Netherlands and Spain, experienced extremely high excess mortality. Another, encompassing Sweden and Switzerland, suffered many more deaths than usual, but significantly less than the first group. Finally, there were countries where deaths remained within a normal range such as Greece and Germany.
Yet the data show that the relative strictness of a country’s containment measures had little bearing on its membership in any of the three groups above. While Germany had milder restrictions than Italy, it has been much more successful in containing the virus.
The overall impression is that while restrictions on movement were seen as a necessary tool to halt the spread of the virus, when and how they were wielded was more important than their severity. Early preparation, and plentiful health-care resources, were enough for several countries to avoid draconian lockdowns. Germany, with better testing and contact tracing and more intensive care units than its neighbors, could afford to keep the economy a bit more open. Greece, by acting quickly and surely, appears to have avoided the worst, so far.
That opinion piece is lacking some serious data. If you go to EuroMoMo where they got the graph from supposedly.You can see the Z rate of Sweden hit higher than that of the Netherlands, yet here in the opinion piece it is claimed the Netherlands had a far worse mortality rate, but no numbers to verify or anything:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, Xenomancers, how are you going to hermetically seal off the 65+ population from the rest of the world? Its entirely unworkable. Not to mention that the healthcare system can't handle such a spread.
But, as our next chart shows, there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities — a measure that looks at the overall number of deaths compared with normal trends.
In Europe, roughly three groups of countries emerge in terms of fatalities. One group, including the U.K., the Netherlands and Spain, experienced extremely high excess mortality. Another, encompassing Sweden and Switzerland, suffered many more deaths than usual, but significantly less than the first group. Finally, there were countries where deaths remained within a normal range such as Greece and Germany.
Yet the data show that the relative strictness of a country’s containment measures had little bearing on its membership in any of the three groups above. While Germany had milder restrictions than Italy, it has been much more successful in containing the virus.
The overall impression is that while restrictions on movement were seen as a necessary tool to halt the spread of the virus, when and how they were wielded was more important than their severity. Early preparation, and plentiful health-care resources, were enough for several countries to avoid draconian lockdowns. Germany, with better testing and contact tracing and more intensive care units than its neighbors, could afford to keep the economy a bit more open. Greece, by acting quickly and surely, appears to have avoided the worst, so far.
That opinion piece is lacking some serious data. If you go to EuroMoMo where they got the graph from supposedly.You can see the Z rate of Sweden hit higher than that of the Netherlands, yet here in the opinion piece it is claimed the Netherlands had a far worse mortality rate, but no numbers to verify or anything:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, Xenomancers, how are you going to hermetically seal off the 65+ population from the rest of the world? Its entirely unworkable.
How are we going to effectively inact any kind of quarrantine or lockdown if we can't even identify everyone who is sick? Putting the entire general populace on lockdown to stop the spread of infection is analagous to putting everyone in prison, the guilty and the innocent, to reduce crime. Afterall if everyone was locked up nobody would be free to commmit crimes.
Of course even the most strict lockdown measures still allow for movement. "Essential workers" still go to work. "Essential businesses" like grocery stores still stay open and people are still going out to shop at them. The majority of people who contract covid19 don't show symptoms or have symptoms mild enough to not require hospitalization so most infected people don't feel sick, aren't going to be tested and will have the freedom to go out. How is that a lockdown?
Again, Xenomancers, how are you going to hermetically seal off the 65+ population from the rest of the world? Its entirely unworkable. Not to mention that the healthcare system can't handle such a spread.
Do you agree or disagree with his broad stroke of quarantine the at risk, allow free movement of resilient populations?
Again, Xenomancers, how are you going to hermetically seal off the 65+ population from the rest of the world? Its entirely unworkable. Not to mention that the healthcare system can't handle such a spread.
Do you agree or disagree with his broad stroke of quarantine the at risk, allow free movement of resilient populations?
Not really, there is a reason virtually no epidemiologist has advocated for this. Because this would take months, if not longer, to get to herd immunity. The healthcare system would become exhausted and there is no realistic way to protect those over 65 for such a prolonged period of time. Look at Sweden, he says they did not do enough to protect the vulnerable, but after 2 months they are at 7-8% infected from testing (in Stockholm). If 60% would be the minimum for herd immunity, that would mean it takes Sweden without a lockdown more than 15 months at least.
How are we going to effectively inact any kind of quarrantine or lockdown if we can't even identify everyone who is sick? Putting the entire general populace on lockdown to stop the spread of infection is analagous to putting everyone in prison, the guilty and the innocent, to reduce crime. Afterall if everyone was locked up nobody would be free to commmit crimes.
Of course even the most strict lockdown measures still allow for movement. "Essential workers" still go to work. "Essential businesses" like grocery stores still stay open and people are still going out to shop at them. The majority of people who contract covid19 don't show symptoms or have symptoms mild enough to not require hospitalization so most infected people don't feel sick, aren't going to be tested and will have the freedom to go out. How is that a lockdown?
Lockdowns are only meant as a way to get a grip on the situation to give room to the healthcare system and get a good start on being able to test and tracing. I don't think any country is going for indefinite lockdown. The lockdown thing kind of goes back to the X amount of deaths argument. Not having the freedom to go out would probably fall under the quarantine China style category, but that seems politically impossible in the West, because that's massively authoritarian.
Measures to keep the R rate down seem to be the long term strategy in this, not lockdowns.
Again, Xenomancers, how are you going to hermetically seal off the 65+ population from the rest of the world? Its entirely unworkable. Not to mention that the healthcare system can't handle such a spread.
Do you agree or disagree with his broad stroke of quarantine the at risk, allow free movement of resilient populations?
Not really, there is a reason virtually no epidemiologist has advocated for this. Because this would take months, if not longer, to get to herd immunity. The healthcare system would become exhausted and there is no realistic way to protect those over 65 for such a prolonged period of time. Look at Sweden, he says they did not do enough to protect the vulnerable, but after 2 months they are at 7-8% infected from testing (in Stockholm). If 60% would be the minimum for herd immunity, that would mean it takes Sweden without a lockdown more than 15 months at least.
Sweeden was not without social distancing encouragement. They just took a lighter approach. Like I have stated before - Sweeden is not the model to be followed. If there is a model to be followed it isolationist practices like Singapore or NZ who have had little to no cases because they control who enters their country and if they find a case they ISOLATE the crap out of them and everyone they have come in contact with. That is the length you have to be willing to go to stop this thing from spreading. European/American lockdown procedures are half assed and in the end amount to nothing because eventually in like 15 months or something near there everyone will have been exposed. It makes no freaking difference wether that happens in 3 months or 15 months. The same number of people will die. There difference between the UK and the US comapred to places like singapore and NZ is...they are international hubs for business and travel. So while this is great for economies and freedom in general. It is bad for spreading viruses. In the future I really hope they take a look at this and stop labeling countries racist for restricting travel into their countries from places during health scares. Realistically though - this is how viruses spread so its no surpise where the hots spots are. So we can't use those coutrnies effective strategies. We need our own strategies because we just have more exposure to that kind of stuff.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/sweden-avoids-full-lockdown-pm-insists-restrictions-continue-200420173945004.html What is the alternative? Lockdown the entire populace until there is a vaccine? That isn't sustainable.
Seriously? What are we gonna do? I know my suggestion seems incredible but it's not as bad as a full lockdown which is completely unsustainable because people can't work.
At the very least it accelerates herd-immunity (which saves lives) and allows economies to continue to function. Instead of spending billions for paying for people to stay home from work. Spend that money on services that help 60+ people stay home - live delivery services/ PPE for 65+ people/ or any other ideas that anyone has to help 60+ people stay isolated.
Again, Xenomancers, how are you going to hermetically seal off the 65+ population from the rest of the world? Its entirely unworkable. Not to mention that the healthcare system can't handle such a spread.
Do you agree or disagree with his broad stroke of quarantine the at risk, allow free movement of resilient populations?
Not really, there is a reason virtually no epidemiologist has advocated for this. Because this would take months, if not longer, to get to herd immunity. The healthcare system would become exhausted and there is no realistic way to protect those over 65 for such a prolonged period of time. Look at Sweden, he says they did not do enough to protect the vulnerable, but after 2 months they are at 7-8% infected from testing (in Stockholm). If 60% would be the minimum for herd immunity, that would mean it takes Sweden without a lockdown more than 15 months at least.
How are we going to effectively inact any kind of quarrantine or lockdown if we can't even identify everyone who is sick? Putting the entire general populace on lockdown to stop the spread of infection is analagous to putting everyone in prison, the guilty and the innocent, to reduce crime. Afterall if everyone was locked up nobody would be free to commmit crimes.
Of course even the most strict lockdown measures still allow for movement. "Essential workers" still go to work. "Essential businesses" like grocery stores still stay open and people are still going out to shop at them. The majority of people who contract covid19 don't show symptoms or have symptoms mild enough to not require hospitalization so most infected people don't feel sick, aren't going to be tested and will have the freedom to go out. How is that a lockdown?
Lockdowns are only meant as a way to get a grip on the situation to give room to the healthcare system and get a good start on being able to test and tracing. I don't think any country is going for indefinite lockdown. The lockdown thing kind of goes back to the X amount of deaths argument. Not having the freedom to go out would probably fall under the quarantine China style category, but that seems politically impossible in the West, because that's massively authoritarian.
Measures to keep the R rate down seem to be the long term strategy in this, not lockdowns.
We literally have health experts calling for lockdown until vaccine and a huge portion of people believe we should stay in lockdown...I think the initial lockdown was a good idea based on the information we were given to begin with regardless if there could have been a better plan. Needs to be over now though.
Again though, if everyone gets sick in 3 months versus 15 months, that means any case requiring hospitalization would be stuffed in that 3 month period. How are you going to prevent it from becoming overwhelmed for resources or staff?
Yes you can follow quarantine procedures, but a significant part of the US, including the President is agitating against what you call a half-assed lockdown. How are you ever going to pull of a quarantine politically? You would need everyone to stay home for two plus weeks to burn it out internally, because otherwise outside quarantine would not work because its spreading internally.
And again, no country is advocating for permanent lockdowns until a vaccine, that is just a straw man. Again, how will you isolate anyone over 60+ from any physical contact? How will you manage, you still need people to give them food and care for them. There isn't enough PPE in the world to protect everyone over 65.
Edit: please give some sources for this claim for lockdowns till a vaccine, because so far no country is doing that even with expert advice. 'Regular' people believing we should remain in lockdown is understandable, because this is a complicated problem and it sounds like an easy solution.
Edit 2: after some googling, what I can find is more sensational leaning headlines that don't accurately represents the studies behind it and get a lot more nuanced on these 'lockdown until vaccine' headlines inside the article. It just says that certain measures will be necessary until that time and a balance between pandemic and the economy will have to be struck, but not to continue the situations during the height of the lockdowns indefinitely. This seems more like a failure to understand about what a concept of lockdown exactly entails and articles lumping all prevention mechanisms under the lockdown nomer
The data on Sweden now shows they have the highest per capita excess death rate in the world , only 7.5% of the Stockholm population are antibody positive, 1% in the rural areas, and their economy tanked something like 6%.
Relaxing a lockdown is certainly possible without reigniting the epidemic if you have got the numbers of infected people very low, got the infection rate (the R number) down, and you have a good TTI tegime, plus testing and quarantine tor international travellers.
Places like South Korea and Hong King have done this. The UK and US have not yet managed it.
The estimated R number for the UK is 0.7 - 1.0, and that is with a fairly good lockdown in place, and we've got we don't know how many infectious people because we've only just got the testing capacity in place to test everyone who might be infected. Our TTI regime looks like another UK.GOV project which might will start to get good in a month or two, but it isn't yet.
For example someone rings you up and says they need to take a lot of personal information from you because you might have been in contact with an infected person. What are most people going to say?
Kilkrazy wrote: The data on Sweden now shows they have the highest per capita excess death rate in the world , only 7.5% of the Stockholm population are antibody positive, 1% in the rural areas, and their economy tanked something like 6%.
Relaxing a lockdown is certainly possible without reigniting the epidemic if you have got the numbers of infected people very low, got the infection rate (the R number) down, and you have a good TTI tegime, plus testing and quarantine tor international travellers.
Places like South Korea and Hong King have done this. The UK and US have not yet managed it.
The estimated R number for the UK is 0.7 - 1.0, and that is with a fairly good lockdown in place, and we've got we don't know how many infectious people because we've only just got the testing capacity in place to test everyone who might be infected. Our TTI regime looks like another UK.GOV project which might will start to get good in a month or two, but it isn't yet.
For example someone rings you up and says they need to take a lot of personal information from you because you might have been in contact with an infected person. What are most people going to say?
This seems like a meaningless statistic when we know sweeden has a lower per capita mortality rate for corona virus than many other countries. It could mean lots of things.
Cummings on the front pages sees more government mishandling hidden deeper within.
I'm back to work 'from' Monday, we'll see what work I get booked between now and then. PPE is ready, bottles of hand sanitizer are waiting to spill in my bag. I get to see how the rest of the UK looks post lockdown now.
Mr. Burning wrote: Cummings on the front pages sees more government mishandling hidden deeper within.
Absolutely, but the UK doesn't care about liars and incompetents, and they certainly don't care about health crisis mismanagement. They go insane about hypocrites, however.
Kilkrazy wrote: The data on Sweden now shows they have the highest per capita excess death rate in the world , only 7.5% of the Stockholm population are antibody positive, 1% in the rural areas, and their economy tanked something like 6%.
Relaxing a lockdown is certainly possible without reigniting the epidemic if you have got the numbers of infected people very low, got the infection rate (the R number) down, and you have a good TTI tegime, plus testing and quarantine tor international travellers.
Places like South Korea and Hong King have done this. The UK and US have not yet managed it.
The estimated R number for the UK is 0.7 - 1.0, and that is with a fairly good lockdown in place, and we've got we don't know how many infectious people because we've only just got the testing capacity in place to test everyone who might be infected. Our TTI regime looks like another UK.GOV project which might will start to get good in a month or two, but it isn't yet.
For example someone rings you up and says they need to take a lot of personal information from you because you might have been in contact with an infected person. What are most people going to say?
This seems like a meaningless statistic when we know sweeden has a lower per capita mortality rate for corona virus than many other countries. It could mean lots of things.
Au contraire, it's more meaningful than the covid death rate, because it takes into account differences in reporting between countries. Unless you believe there's some cause of death in the past 3 months which isn't Covid related and has unaccountably increased 30-40% compared to previous years.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We just had the 10th and final "Clap for Key Workers" session. It was pretty well attended, though it was noticeably shorter than previous weeks. The steam had begun to go out of it.
I agree with stopping it now, before it becomes a dismal shadow of its former glory.
I do regret the loss of a demonstration of community spirit, though. For a few weeks we all leant out of our windows and it didn't seem ot matter if you were a Tory or Labour or SNP or Brexiteer or Remainer.
We were all united for a few sweet minutes in appreciation of the vital work done by medical staff, porters, drivers, shopp workers and everyone who has bene slogging through this crisis, overworked, underpaid and underprotected, to try and keep the rest of us fed and well.
As for quarantining the High Risk population and allowing freedom to work for low-risk people, how does this work?
Someone care to elaborate on this "plan"?
Is there actually some substance behind it? Maybe some government pitching it, a white paper, a politician asking for votes on it, or is it just a bunch of commentators on the internet saying it?
Kilkrazy wrote: The data on Sweden now shows they have the highest per capita excess death rate in the world , only 7.5% of the Stockholm population are antibody positive, 1% in the rural areas, and their economy tanked something like 6%.
Relaxing a lockdown is certainly possible without reigniting the epidemic if you have got the numbers of infected people very low, got the infection rate (the R number) down, and you have a good TTI tegime, plus testing and quarantine tor international travellers.
Places like South Korea and Hong King have done this. The UK and US have not yet managed it.
The estimated R number for the UK is 0.7 - 1.0, and that is with a fairly good lockdown in place, and we've got we don't know how many infectious people because we've only just got the testing capacity in place to test everyone who might be infected. Our TTI regime looks like another UK.GOV project which might will start to get good in a month or two, but it isn't yet.
For example someone rings you up and says they need to take a lot of personal information from you because you might have been in contact with an infected person. What are most people going to say?
This seems like a meaningless statistic when we know sweeden has a lower per capita mortality rate for corona virus than many other countries. It could mean lots of things.
Au contraire, it's more meaningful than the covid death rate, because it takes into account differences in reporting between countries. Unless you believe there's some cause of death in the past 3 months which isn't Covid related and has unaccountably increased 30-40% compared to previous years.
It could be a lot of things is all I am saying. It could be argued that all the countries around them are under reporting too or maybe in the case of the UK over-reporting. It could be differences in reporting as with like with the "died with" and "died of" discrepancies. Not saying that is the case - your conclusion could be correct. It's all assumption though. I don't even think it would be unreasonable to expect the country with the loosest lockdown procedures to have the highest death rate up to this point. Though I believe their reporting is just as reliable as other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy Interestingly and unsurprisingly Sweden ranks pretty high in the world for life expecency. Interestingly also - Spain is ranked even higher - yet doesn't have an excessive R number....the older you are the more likely corona is fatal so how is Spain 5th in the world not having excessive deaths with a huge corona virus death rate?
Seems strange to me. If you could explain that to me I'd appreciate it. I am not entirely sure how R number is calculated. I'm pretty sure countries with higher life expectancy should be more acceptable to change in R.
ing in the background or is that just me?
