Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.

Erm......

When we compare spread and mortality rates between countries that dithered (UK) and those that didn’t, it’s frankly remarkable.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.

Except multiple cases overseas show that the lockdown measures DO help reduce infection spread. There's ample scientific and imperial data to support the viewpoint that lockdowns to have a viable impact. Otherwise countries would not be locking down. Right now the most likely and logical conclusion is that reduced public movement and interaction is resulting in a reduction in infection rate thus reducing pressure on the medial system.

Furthermore even if you do question the data we already have, its a huge risk to reactivate and test it out on the off chance. Especially when there's no data to suggest that no lockdown would result in improved health and all the evidence we do have suggests the opposite.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.

So many people still do not get social distancing.

If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?

People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.

Indeed, post hoc ergo Procter hoc, and the beautiful part of this for those who are deciding these policies, is that afterwards they can say, well it was because of these lockdown measures, despite there being no way to prove or disprove because the actions had already been implemented. The only thing you could do is compare with Sweden, which hasn't introduced such stringent measures.

Social distancing clearly does have an impact, that has been documented here and in previous cases, I just think it's a shame that it has to be imposed on the population with such measures.


https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/


Regarding masks, I think they make you touch your face more. Adjusting them, scratching your nose and ears etc. Wearing something on your face is annoying. I don't think the benefits are enough to warrant wearing them personally.

In Germany, the reproduction factor R0 has been downed to 0.7 which means linear growth and no more exponential.
But I haven't found a statistics listing R0 for all countries out there.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.

We've had two formal critical incidents and I wonder if the emptiness of the Nightingales is at all connected to the referring hospital being obliged to send a nurse and equipment with each patient?

You try to be thorough in your critiques of government statements and data that challenge your assumptions. Why so uncritical of the evidence that agrees with you?

 Overread wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the hospitals are not overwhelmed does not necessarily have to be because of any measures taken.

Except multiple cases overseas show that the lockdown measures DO help reduce infection spread. There's ample scientific and imperial data to support the viewpoint that lockdowns to have a viable impact. Otherwise countries would not be locking down. Right now the most likely and logical conclusion is that reduced public movement and interaction is resulting in a reduction in infection rate thus reducing pressure on the medial system.

Furthermore even if you do question the data we already have, its a huge risk to reactivate and test it out on the off chance. Especially when there's no data to suggest that no lockdown would result in improved health and all the evidence we do have suggests the opposite.

Oh I agree completely, but that is not how it was put when I responded. I'm not saying lockdowns can't be having an effect, I'm saying there's other factors that also contribute when combating the virus and that attributing the reduction in deaths to lockdowns is too simplistic at this point in time.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.

So many people still do not get social distancing.

If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?

People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.

The harm comes from three posible directions:

1. A common surgical mask doesn't stop the virue microparticles emitted during the asymptomatic and infectious phase of the disease.
2. People who feel safer typically behave in a more risky fashion. People who think other people are safer often behave towards them in a more risky fashion.
3. The money spent on masks has to be diverted from other priorities.

 Easy E wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am convinced more and more that the modern divide in our society is not race, it is not class, it is not education, it is not gender, but it is rural v. urban.

It is a major thing. You can see it discussed here, for example, under the name of "the density divide."

Will WIlkerson was also on Sean Carroll's Mindscape Podcast talking about it as well.

While it is hard to say that the rest of the things you mention matter "less" the population density thing is yet another pretty big factor.

Is that only now discussed over yonder?
For us this is old hat. One of the more common themes of regular lines of conflict with Tradition.

It was a thing during the "Progressive Era" in this country around the turn of the 20th Century and then during the new Deal. However, the Depression and Two World Wars, and then the Cold War put an end to much of it. People have been able too focused externally to really start being radicalizing about it. What is interesting is the last two time the Urban/Rural divide explode it was facing "leftward" and this time it is more "Rightward" facing. Interesting..... I guess.

Funnily enough it was from the start a more right leaning faction that won that voter mass here. But that has to do with our conservatives beeing coorperatists due to most of them beeing tied with the catholic church.

Edit: [rant]As a snarky aside, I am loving the (insert appropriate German word I can not spell) as an Introvert watching all these Extroverts lose their minds after a month or so of living in an Introvert world! Welcome MFers, I have had to live in your GD Introvert world my whole life, so buck up and handle yourself for a few weeks for the good of your fellow citizens and older generation. Instead, I hear you whining about "liberty", the "economy" and your "civil rights". No one cared about Introvert preferences before so now we don't have to care about extrovert preferences now! [/rant]

Of course, as the politically active majority, the Extroverts will get what they want and the self-distancing and lock downs will end very soon.

You mean Schadenfreude. Which my grandmother used to state that it is the most beautiful Happines..
Did i mention that she was quite the sass thrower.

nfe wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.

We've had two formal critical incidents and I wonder if the emptiness of the Nightingales is at all connected to the referring hospital being obliged to send a nurse and equipment with each patient?

You try to be thorough in your critiques of government statements and data that challenge your assumptions. Why so uncritical of the evidence that agrees with you?

I don't know much about it, but all I know is that the media plastered the new temporary hospital all over it for about a week, then it dropped off and since then I've heard that one person has been admitted. My point was about capacity. It still stands does it not?

No, not at all.

That it’s largely unused is evidence the Lockdown is working as intended.

First control infection.

Second plan for the worst predicted infection rate.

Gotta day dude, I know you’re a military man (and respect to you for that), so you’re resistance to orders in this instance has me kinda baffled.

 Easy E wrote:

Edit: [rant]As a snarky aside, I am loving the (insert appropriate German word I can not spell) as an Introvert watching all these Extroverts lose their minds after a month or so of living in an Introvert world! Welcome MFers, I have had to live in your GD Introvert world my whole life, so buck up and handle yourself for a few weeks for the good of your fellow citizens and older generation. Instead, I hear you whining about "liberty", the "economy" and your "civil rights". No one cared about Introvert preferences before so now we don't have to care about extrovert preferences now! [/rant]

Of course, as the politically active majority, the Extroverts will get what they want and the self-distancing and lock downs will end very soon.

Whining about liberty? You mean the foundational principle that our Western civilisations are based upon? Civil rights? Those which have been fought for and gained over hundreds of years? Which still cause conflict today? Yeah I guess they don't matter because there's a virus going around. You, and no one else here so far, has provided a valid reason for the occasions of unjust actions of some governments and authorities, except the twitter soundbites of 'its an emergency' or 'you don't care about people's lives' neither of which either provide a valid point against mine, or excuse those who are undertaking those actions. It's just shouting down to try and shut down debate.

I don't need to justify the fact that I am taking the virus seriously. I socially distance when I'm out, and I'm not going to places unnecessarily, but some parts of the new laws, and the certain police enforcing them are in the wrong. It's that simple.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No, not at all.

That it’s largely unused is evidence the Lockdown is working as intended.

First control infection.

Second plan for the worst predicted infection rate.

Gotta day dude, I know you’re a military man (and respect to you for that), so you’re resistance to orders in this instance has me kinda baffled.

I was taught how to think, not what to think. Orders in the military have to be legal orders, or they can and should be disobeyed.

As was I?

The lockdown has a very, very clear benefit.

The detriment to it is a near inevitable recession, albeit one we’re poised to rebound relatively quickly from.

The evidence is clear - the intent of the lockdown is paying off. And we need to maintain this discipline for just a few more weeks to properly get a lid on it.

Considering These people have increased the risk and necessity for further meassures or prolongings of the lockdown and therefore restrictions as Of what you deem the most important "Western" values one would assume that'd you not would encourage or play apologist for such behaviour.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

I don't need to justify the fact that I am taking the virus seriously. I socially distance when I'm out, and I'm not going to places unnecessarily, but some parts of the new laws, and the certain police enforcing them are in the wrong. It's that simple.

But surely you realise that not everyone is doing as they are told? That they require a level of enforcement to take even basic measures like social distancing and not travelling for unnecessary purposes? We didn't go out this year on mothers day but that was the first weekend right after the Friday government told everyone to basically lockdown in all but law and I know many many places were open and heaving with customers come the Sunday. It was the Monday right after that advice became law.

Furthermore these measures are short term - just like blackouts and rationing during WWII. Only we aren't protecting ourselves from food shortage and bombs, but a virus. We suffered those invasions to our freedom when we were at war specifically in part to protect those freedoms we had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The evidence is clear - the intent of the lockdown is paying off. And we need to maintain this discipline for just a few more weeks to properly get a lid on it.

Accepting that even after those weeks we will likely get a surge of cases once the lockdown is over; however if we've got several major new hospital units and hundreds to thousands more ventilators and staff trained and drugs perhaps beyond just testing and in use - then the lockdown has indeed done exactly what we needed it to do. Suspended the country to buy time to prepare and carry forward with a significantly reduced risk of harm to the health of the population.

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

I don't need to justify the fact that I am taking the virus seriously. I socially distance when I'm out, and I'm not going to places unnecessarily, but some parts of the new laws, and the certain police enforcing them are in the wrong. It's that simple.

But surely you realise that not everyone is doing as they are told? That they require a level of enforcement to take even basic measures like social distancing and not travelling for unnecessary purposes? We didn't go out this year on mothers day but that was the first weekend right after the Friday government told everyone to basically lockdown in all but law and I know many many places were open and heaving with customers come the Sunday. It was the Monday right after that advice became law.

Furthermore these measures are short term - just like blackouts and rationing during WWII. Only we aren't protecting ourselves from food shortage and bombs, but a virus. We suffered those invasions to our freedom when we were at war specifically in part to protect those freedoms we had.

This discussion is just circular. He doesn't think the rules are necessary, despite evidence to the contrary, because he's convinced he is the best judge of what he can do and where he can go. Just like everyone else.

No, some aren't, but I'm not concerned with those, I'm concerned with breastfeeding mothers being told to 'tell your baby to hurry up and finish' or parents being told to remove their children from front lawns, cyclists being fined for 'not being sweaty enough', a solo surfer on an empty beach being told he wasn't exercising, police commissioners threatening to search people's shopping, and then some police actually doing that, police barking orders at people through drones, setting up snitch hotlines and websites. The list goes on and on. There are government briefings on police overreach and misuse of the new powers, and its only been 3 weeks. And I'm concerned that people are just accepting it, because they're so desperate for any notion of safety they think the government can provide.

Gonna need actual, verified citations for those I’m afraid.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve not interest in falling out with you over this. I’m just finding your response, well, a bit odd?

Even if some of the powers that be are a bit, shall we say, keen? Well....that doesn’t mean the national approach is therefore wrong? Just that ‘bum hole is gonna bum hole’?

The government issued generalist statements and powers leaving police to interpret them as best they could. This is normal; governments make general policies and laws and then specific stake holders make the best policies and structure specific to their area of work. The difference here is that instead of a long consultation and slow adoption; its basically police having to work out best policy overnight. Government has honestly been pretty fast at reining in some of the more creative or excessive interpretations of the legislation.

That said all new legislation goes through a period of adaption; the only reason its being an issue now is, as I noted, because its been enacted very fast. Furthermore its rolled out nationally so there's a huge body of variations over the whole nation to contend with.

Yeah, and I'll concur with that, but it really is professionally imperitive that the police get the distinction between guidance and law right. And the laws themselves are ambiguous, have not been scrutinised, and independent lawyers have expressed concern that human rights could potentially be violated. Usually section 7 of the ECHR which pertains to being charged or held for a crime not committed. This goes against everything that the foundations of English civil law and soceity in general is based on. All the usual safeguards either failed or just gave in due to pressure, in my opinion from the public, which themselves had been panicked by the media, and the advice of a non peer reviewed, and also disputed model based on predictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Gonna need actual, verified citations for those I’m afraid.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve not interest in falling out with you over this. I’m just finding your response, well, a bit odd?

Even if some of the powers that be are a bit, shall we say, keen? Well....that doesn’t mean the national approach is therefore wrong? Just that ‘bum hole is gonna bum hole’?

Of course, I always want civil debate. No. And I never said it was, I think the whole social distancing thing is a good policy, and I never said the police shouldn't have powers. I support the powers that allow them to quarantine and remove infected or suspected infected for testing, and also their powers to break up gatherings.

What I don't support is their powers to act as subjective judge and jury over the actions in public of law abiding citizens, going about their day. Provided they are alone or with family, and are not going near people, it shouldn't matter why they are out or what they are doing. There is too much nuance in the lives of the general public, for these to be applied with any consistency, as witnessed in the last 2 weeks.

The coronavirus bill even stipulated this in its original draft 'there are no powers in the bill which would allow directions to be issued requiring individuals to have prior permission of have good reason to leave their homes' which they U turned on within about 2 days!

The citizenry are required to hold their government, and in turn their institutions to account, and this is not being done. That is my issue. To shout me down with 'you don't care about the deaths' or 'just follow the rules' is just a straw man meant to end any discussion on the issue.

As for sources, I screenshot everything I think is relevant, newspaper articles, government papers, legislations etc, but I haven't posted any because I didn't want to clog the thread with images. Most of the things I mentioned above come from news articles, from all sides of the political spectrum, with a few from accounts on twitter. It's all anecdotal of course, but there really is no other way of showing this sort of thing without using anecdote.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

nfe wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Hospitals in the UK aren't even near capacity, the nightingale has a handful of patients, and they're building a new one anyway.

We've had two formal critical incidents and I wonder if the emptiness of the Nightingales is at all connected to the referring hospital being obliged to send a nurse and equipment with each patient?

You try to be thorough in your critiques of government statements and data that challenge your assumptions. Why so uncritical of the evidence that agrees with you?

I don't know much about it, but all I know is that the media plastered the new temporary hospital all over it for about a week, then it dropped off and since then I've heard that one person has been admitted. My point was about capacity. It still stands does it not?

It stands if you remove all context. The Nightingales are not busy. But why? Is it because there aren't enough seriously I'll people to fill them, which was your implication? Or is it that they can't be staffed and equipped and that many thousands of people who should be in them are dying at home or in care facilities?

That's fair enough. I'll admit that I don't know the context. But hospitals are definitely not at full capacity. Which is good, of course. I'm glad that's the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MDG, Just reading the latest government paper on the measures.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmhaff/232/23203.htm#_idTextAnchor003

If you scroll down you can see some of the examples that I mentioned in there.

It mentions the huge discrepancies between different constabularies in the number of fines or actions taken, something that I have noticed. There seems to be repeat offenders in the news, Cambs, Northants, North Yorkshire (letting the team down boys) South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Surrey, but here in Oxfordshire I've had no problems. Not even so much as seen a rozzer since it all started.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.

So many people still do not get social distancing.

If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?

People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.

The harm comes from three posible directions:

1. A common surgical mask doesn't stop the virue microparticles emitted during the asymptomatic and infectious phase of the disease.
2. People who feel safer typically behave in a more risky fashion. People who think other people are safer often behave towards them in a more risky fashion.
3. The money spent on masks has to be diverted from other priorities.

The virus can be carried on larger particles as well. Plus small particles can be caught by chance, it is not like they just pass through as if nothing was there. Plus it provides a barrier from people touching their face, which I imagine almost everyone does without thinking from time to time.

And the biggest one; the experts are telling people to do it.

So one of my peeves about the virus was that the media and people were only looking at deaths and recovery rates, implying that anyone who recovered was as healthy as they were before infection, or that this virus would not be an issue for young "healthy" people. With the virus only being around for four months, we have no long term data and we're too busy to save lives than to measure quality of life. But I don't remember "lungs on fire" as a symptom of recovery from the seasonal flu.

"Many other coronavirus victims, such as US actress Brianna Cohen, 32, and Shaun Khubchandani, 30, have reported that their lungs feel like they’re “on fire” long after they were declared recovered. Lung specialist Mina Rafik Makaryus said: “One of the biggest questions . . . is [whether] these patients will recover fully, or if there will be chronic lung damage from this virus.”

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/patients-who-beat-coronavirus-fear-21885664

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The economics discussion seems to be drifting a bit off topic mates...

Anyways, business as usual around where I am in San Diego. There are still people around, but few in number and doing a pretty good job of distancing. Most everyone has masks now if they are going into stores, and drive-thrus are definitely doing good business. The lockdown is significant, but people are managing. Certainly not at horrid as it is made out to be in the media (is it ever?) at least locally.

In looking at the numbers in California, it looks like they're the exception to the rule of other high density cities/regions. It's quite amazing.

Also, the agencies got a great start in ramping up additional testing bandwidth and the numbers show that.

Here in St. Louis area, we're plateauing and the numbers seems to be on the down swing.

Other than folks observing social distancing and face masks. Things are almost calm enough to start reopening things around here.

Although, we're still having TP shortages.

One of the big problems with masks is if you are infected they'll trap a load of virus, so if you touch them (even on the outside) your hands are now covered in really high levels of virus

and untrained people will keep touching their masks, pulling them down to eat, drink, talk or just to get a breath of air (just watch the people in masks captured on film by the news cameras

We need to borrow the cone of shame from our dogs. Keep us from touching our faces. It’s a bad subconscious habit. And now potentially lethal.

The nightingale has no staff , appropriately trained staff from Manchester being offered £400 a shift to work there .

Far as I can gather we have enough staff in total but not enough specialists , Oldham icu for example has 1 icu nurse overseeing a team of 4+ untrained nurses with a patient each( icu wards would normally have 1 icu nurse per patient + 1 or more floating icu nurses depending on size or ward)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am worried by the growing idea that maybe we should all wear masks.

So many people still do not get social distancing.

If they're incapable of standing 2m away from you, how are they going to manage wearing a clinical mask properly?

People in my section of Michigan don't wear masks. I see maybe two or three other people wearing masks on the average shopping trip. I'm not sick at all, but it keeps me from touching my face. Of course, with Covid19, I could be sick for a week all the while saying "I'm not sick at all". A bit of overkill by wearing a mask is not going to harm anyone, but the opposite might.

The harm comes from three posible directions:

1. A common surgical mask doesn't stop the virue microparticles emitted during the asymptomatic and infectious phase of the disease.
2. People who feel safer typically behave in a more risky fashion. People who think other people are safer often behave towards them in a more risky fashion.
3. The money spent on masks has to be diverted from other priorities.

The virus can be carried on larger particles as well. Plus small particles can be caught by chance, it is not like they just pass through as if nothing was there. Plus it provides a barrier from people touching their face, which I imagine almost everyone does without thinking from time to time.

And the biggest one; the experts are telling people to do it.

Also, masks are because people can't even cover their coughs correctly, at least a mask will do that. And for virus trapped on the mask, yeah. You are not supposed to touch your mask after putting it on, unless to take it off. In your car, or at home.

I'd also argue that humanism, not liberty, is the foundation of modern western society.