CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)
Discussion
Byker28i said:
RSTurboPaul said:
And if mask wearing becomes compulsory in public spaces, I won't be going to any shops full-stop.
Is it really such a big issue. Put it on where required, take it off where not? Masks are heavily used in other countries alreadyI can see it becoming a fashion accessory, matching outfits etc...
The dangers i see with masks is it makes people think they are invulnerable. There is a guy in my local shop who I see all the time, he masks up before going in and takes all the precautions to the extreme until he meets his favourite shop assistant and then takes it off so he can speak properly to her...once done he puts the mask back on and continues to glare at anyone getting too close.
Elysium said:
That is not a balanced outlook. It is dangerous.
Because your own outlook is so evenly balanced? 
Sorry, but that jumped off the page at me.
Because I have a fairly centrist view of this, I don't lean to far into either camp, so the proponents of either extremities really stand out to me.
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 8th July 12:19
Byker28i said:
RSTurboPaul said:
And if mask wearing becomes compulsory in public spaces, I won't be going to any shops full-stop.
Is it really such a big issue. Put it on where required, take it off where not? Masks are heavily used in other countries alreadyI can see it becoming a fashion accessory, matching outfits etc...
1) We're not, nor have ever been, a mask-wearing culture. Maybe for a brief time of the old 'pea-soupers' of the 1950's, but never since.
2) Mission creep. I've said before that if we acquiesce to this, what is next? Because there will be something 'for our own good'.
3) Remember the media scare about 'hoodies' a little while ago, especially CMD's 'hug-a-hoodie' malarkey? Add masks onto that, and some people will take advantage.
4) I still don't think there is enough evidence, especially for the useless home-made crap, to support a nationwide instruction for healthy people and those outside of the high-risk groups to wear masks in public spaces.
Elysium said:
Byker28i said:
RSTurboPaul said:
And if mask wearing becomes compulsory in public spaces, I won't be going to any shops full-stop.
Is it really such a big issue. Put it on where required, take it off where not? Masks are heavily used in other countries alreadyI can see it becoming a fashion accessory, matching outfits etc...
That's the issue.
Mask wearing is about other peoples fear. It is irrational, but oddly compelling to the human psyche. It is a visual signal that many are willing to believe in, with or without any evidence.
smashing said:
if you're putting them on and taking them off all day that really isn't good practice unless you are disposing of them effectively.
The dangers i see with masks is it makes people think they are invulnerable. There is a guy in my local shop who I see all the time, he masks up before going in and takes all the precautions to the extreme until he meets his favourite shop assistant and then takes it off so he can speak properly to her...once done he puts the mask back on and continues to glare at anyone getting too close.
The dangers i see with masks is it makes people think they are invulnerable. There is a guy in my local shop who I see all the time, he masks up before going in and takes all the precautions to the extreme until he meets his favourite shop assistant and then takes it off so he can speak properly to her...once done he puts the mask back on and continues to glare at anyone getting too close.
MikeT66 said:
Sorry, but I think it is a big issue.
1) We're not, nor have ever been, a mask-wearing culture. Maybe for a brief time of the old 'pea-soupers' of the 1950's, but never since.
2) Mission creep. I've said before that if we acquiesce to this, what is next? Because there will be something 'for our own good'.
3) Remember the media scare about 'hoodies' a little while ago, especially CMD's 'hug-a-hoodie' malarkey? Add masks onto that, and some people will take advantage.
4) I still don't think there is enough evidence, especially for the useless home-made crap, to support a nationwide instruction for healthy people and those outside of the high-risk groups to wear masks in public spaces.
What they said.1) We're not, nor have ever been, a mask-wearing culture. Maybe for a brief time of the old 'pea-soupers' of the 1950's, but never since.
2) Mission creep. I've said before that if we acquiesce to this, what is next? Because there will be something 'for our own good'.
3) Remember the media scare about 'hoodies' a little while ago, especially CMD's 'hug-a-hoodie' malarkey? Add masks onto that, and some people will take advantage.
4) I still don't think there is enough evidence, especially for the useless home-made crap, to support a nationwide instruction for healthy people and those outside of the high-risk groups to wear masks in public spaces.
Limited evidence of effectiveness (but plenty of BBC talk of 'a growing body of evidence' - without actually showing any of it
), noted by the WHO as increasing risk due to decreasing other personal hygiene strategies, can only be worn once (untouched and unmoved from its original position when put on) and then thrown away, and the list of negatives in the WHO report far outweighs any positives.It appears to be getting quasi-religious - if you are not a true believer then you must be chastised and cast out from society, shamed for your flagrant and wilful disobedience, and cast in the light of someone who is evil because you refuse to do things for the (alleged) benefit of others.
The BBC are, if you'll excuse my French, a bunch of wilfully misleading, manipulative, fear-mongering
s. Rather than report the actual facts from both sides, they are actively creating a narrative of fear and paranoia and ever-shifting goalposts through mis-reporting and non-reporting, such that the public is being kept in the dark about the true nature of Covid-19, made to believe everyone who gets it will either die a horrible, lonely death on an incubator in a hospital bed or suffer life-changing ongoing issues, and led to believe that intrusive and pointless social engineering is required to 'stop' a virus that appears to be less harmful than flu and which could be easily dealt with through measures targeted at the most vulnerable.The BBC's actions are shameful. I support the arts and the excellent productions they can create, but for this, I think they should be hauled over the coals and an investigation undertaken in full public view, so we can know who within the organisation has been instructing them to take this damaging and reckless approach.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 8th July 12:47
TheJimi said:
Elysium said:
That is not a balanced outlook. It is dangerous.
Because your own outlook is so evenly balanced? Sorry, but that jumped off the page at me.
Because I have a fairly centrist view of this, I don't lean to far into either camp, so the proponents of either extremities really stand out to me.
When you have two opposing views, it does not follow that the middle ground is a reasonable position. It is quite possible that one person is entirely wrong and the other is entirely right.
Sambucket is arguing for a course of action where the benefits are unknown and the costs are completely ignored. I think that lacks balance.
My view is opposed to his, but I think it is far more measured. I don't think we should do things unless we have some idea that they will work, some understanding of the possible costs and hence some comfort that we are not making the situation worse.
Elysium said:
A fair observation, but that is not what I meant by a balanced outlook
When you have two opposing views, it does not follow that the middle ground is a reasonable position. It is quite possible that one person is entirely wrong and the other is entirely right.
Sambucket is arguing for a course of action where the benefits are unknown and the costs are completely ignored. I think that lacks balance.
My view is opposed to his, but I think it is far more measured. I don't think we should do things unless we have some idea that they will work, some understanding of the possible costs and hence some comfort that we are not making the situation worse.
Do you buy ORD's idea, that everyone involved hasn't taken the time to look at the costs and benefits in detail, from various perspectives? And are just stupid morons?When you have two opposing views, it does not follow that the middle ground is a reasonable position. It is quite possible that one person is entirely wrong and the other is entirely right.
Sambucket is arguing for a course of action where the benefits are unknown and the costs are completely ignored. I think that lacks balance.
My view is opposed to his, but I think it is far more measured. I don't think we should do things unless we have some idea that they will work, some understanding of the possible costs and hence some comfort that we are not making the situation worse.
What I'm arguing for is actually different to what I'm discussing, which is my interpretation of England's flu+ strategy. If it were me, I'd be going full sars wuhan at this point, and turning UK into alcatraz.
sambucket said:
Do you buy ORD's idea, that everyone involved hasn't taken the time to look at the costs and benefits in detail, from various perspectives? And are just stupid morons?
What I'm arguing for is actually different to what I'm discussing, which is my interpretation of England's flu+ strategy. If it were me, I'd be going full sars wuhan at this point, and turning UK into alcatraz.
Once again spouting off about how he'd lock everyone up in his dictatorship while actively ignoring the minor rules in scotland.What I'm arguing for is actually different to what I'm discussing, which is my interpretation of England's flu+ strategy. If it were me, I'd be going full sars wuhan at this point, and turning UK into alcatraz.
sambucket said:
Elysium said:
A fair observation, but that is not what I meant by a balanced outlook
When you have two opposing views, it does not follow that the middle ground is a reasonable position. It is quite possible that one person is entirely wrong and the other is entirely right.
Sambucket is arguing for a course of action where the benefits are unknown and the costs are completely ignored. I think that lacks balance.
My view is opposed to his, but I think it is far more measured. I don't think we should do things unless we have some idea that they will work, some understanding of the possible costs and hence some comfort that we are not making the situation worse.
Do you buy ORD's idea, that everyone involved hasn't taken the time to look at the costs and benefits in detail, from various perspectives? And are just stupid morons?When you have two opposing views, it does not follow that the middle ground is a reasonable position. It is quite possible that one person is entirely wrong and the other is entirely right.
Sambucket is arguing for a course of action where the benefits are unknown and the costs are completely ignored. I think that lacks balance.
My view is opposed to his, but I think it is far more measured. I don't think we should do things unless we have some idea that they will work, some understanding of the possible costs and hence some comfort that we are not making the situation worse.
What I'm arguing for is actually different to what I'm discussing, which is my interpretation of England's flu+ strategy. If it were me, I'd be going full sars wuhan at this point, and turning UK into alcatraz.
At a time when the virus is clearly receding, you are arguing for extended, harder lockdown, with little objective evidence that this will achieve anything and almost negligable thought for the consequences.
Elysium said:
I know you would. That is why I said your views lacked balance and were dangerous.
At a time when the virus is clearly receding, you are arguing for extended, harder lockdown, with little objective evidence that this will achieve anything and almost negligable thought for the consequences.
No. Can I have a go?At a time when the virus is clearly receding, you are arguing for extended, harder lockdown, with little objective evidence that this will achieve anything and almost negligable thought for the consequences.
You are arguing, that by continuing prioritise the suppression of COVID, which is basically the same as flu, NHS and govt have given barely any thought to the consequences, or longer term health and economic costs and benefits. And are instead doing whatever looks good politically in the short term, with no regard for long term impact on general society? Through a combination of stupidity and personal self preservation?
have I got that more or less right?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th July 14:30
This is an updated analysis of the risk from COVID in England and Wales based on the ONS data published yesterday. I am using deaths based on date of occurence, which is the most pessimistic view:
As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
Elysium said:
This is an updated analysis of the risk from COVID in England and Wales based on the ONS data published yesterday. I am using deaths based on date of occurence, which is the most pessimistic view:
As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
On one hand I am glad you post stuff like this....on the other hand I wish you wouldn't simply because it then gets me wound up about everything all over again As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
Elysium said:
You seem to think you have found another way. That we can lockdown so hard and so long that we can wink it out of existence. But you have absolutely no idea if it will actually work and you are deliberately ignoring the obvious downsides. That is not a balanced outlook. It is dangerous.
As an island, with the political will, yes we *could* have done that. But we had a half-arsed lockdown, we didn't close the borders, and now we've lifted most of what rules there were with the virus still circulating and it's too late. So yes, we are going to live with it now long-term, with all of the problems that causes not only for the 15 million people who are elderly or have underlying health issues that make them vulnerable to COVID, but everyone else as well.
sim72 said:
As an island, with the political will, yes we *could* have done that. But we had a half-arsed lockdown, we didn't close the borders, and now we've lifted most of what rules there were with the virus still circulating and it's too late.
So yes, we are going to live with it now long-term, with all of the problems that causes not only for the 15 million people who are elderly or have underlying health issues that make them vulnerable to COVID, but everyone else as well.
Given we are an island that acts as a key transport hub between most of the world, and with a population that is likely to be one of the most diverse on the planet (I would argue) and therefore have familial and business links across the whole world, do you think that locking down totally and closing the borders (a la New Zealand - an island at the end of the earth, with only really one main route in and out) until total elimination / eradication of C19 was achieved, would be achievable, sustainable or desirable?So yes, we are going to live with it now long-term, with all of the problems that causes not only for the 15 million people who are elderly or have underlying health issues that make them vulnerable to COVID, but everyone else as well.
Saweep said:
RTB said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There weren't enough tanks on the streets for one. Plus there were too many people out buying Easter eggs. I
The lockdown was called to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed. The NHS wasn't overwhelmed therefore lockdown didn't need to be any more "arsed" to achieve those aims.
I'm sorry that for some it didn't quite turn into the authoritarian wet dream they would have liked. Can I suggest they institute their own self-lockdown? I think that would be to the benefit of everyone.
The lockdown wasn’t half assed in mobility terms. Looking at this.
Hunt isn’t asking for a change in policy, he is asking for an intensification of things like mass testing, stricter isolation, lower tolerance of flare ups etc. As he says in the vid, UK is already zero covid orientated.
Hunt isn’t asking for a change in policy, he is asking for an intensification of things like mass testing, stricter isolation, lower tolerance of flare ups etc. As he says in the vid, UK is already zero covid orientated.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th July 17:04
sambucket said:
The lockdown wasn’t half assed in mobility terms. Looking at this.
Hunt isn’t asking for a change in policy, he is asking for an intensification of things like mass testing, stricter isolation, lower tolerance of flare ups etc. As he says in the vid, UK is already zero covid orientated.
Is there a link to where that graph came from?Hunt isn’t asking for a change in policy, he is asking for an intensification of things like mass testing, stricter isolation, lower tolerance of flare ups etc. As he says in the vid, UK is already zero covid orientated.
Edited by sambucket on Wednesday 8th July 17:04
Not sure if this is posted already but Lancet reporting 5.2% prevalence in testing, framed (of course
) as 'herd immunity is impossible without a vaccine':https://twitter.com/i/events/1280194458722562049?s...
I don't understand how they can frame it in that way. If many (most?) are asymptomatic and have no detectable antibodies after catching the actual live virus, surely they will see the exact same outcome after receiving a shot of dead virus in a vaccination? In which case, why do we need a vaccine??
RSTurboPaul said:
And if mask wearing becomes compulsory in public spaces, I won't be going to any shops full-stop.
Same here. Nor will I be going to any restaurant that expects me to sit behind a sheet of perspex and wear a mask. So go on Government .... introduce a law that requires a face mask to be worn at all times in public spaces. Then you can really hammer some big nails into the coffin of the economy for good. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff