CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)
Discussion
V88Dicky said:
JagLover said:
Elysium said:
I saw this on twitter earlier:
https://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013/status/12821725...
A paper from 1973 documenting a spontaneous outbreak of coronavirus (not this one) in a group that had been in total isolation in the Antarctic for 17 weeks.
No one really knows what happens to seasonal viruses between outbreaks, but it is thought that they can sit dormant for long periods.
Fascinating stuffhttps://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013/status/12821725...
A paper from 1973 documenting a spontaneous outbreak of coronavirus (not this one) in a group that had been in total isolation in the Antarctic for 17 weeks.
No one really knows what happens to seasonal viruses between outbreaks, but it is thought that they can sit dormant for long periods.
I think that my workplace reflects very well the back to front approach we have had to this. We have just had perspex screens installed in our call center, and some tape on the floor, and a crap screen dividing me from the driver in the front in our cars. No one is using masks in our call center, it's populated by Doctors visiting unwell Patients.
We are so far from the uncertainty of early March now that I truly think I am living in an alternate universe, it's lunacy.
We are so far from the uncertainty of early March now that I truly think I am living in an alternate universe, it's lunacy.
The Spruce Goose said:
The problem is the government is on the back foot as pretty much dismissed the severity and now playing catch up which means they are more worried on public opinion than actually policies that would work to control it.
I disagree with the suggestion that the government dismissed the severity. It got it about right in early March - it’s a highly infectious but not very harmful respiratory disease and will sweep through the population but leave the vast vast majority absolutely fine.The government dramatically overestimated the British public, however. It did not realise that there is no willingness to tolerate any adversity and no tolerance for tough decisions.
ORD said:
I disagree with the suggestion that the government dismissed the severity. It got it about right in early March -
Well top scientists said a lockdiwn a week earlier lockdown would have prevented up to 20k deaths, I think that on it's own highlights the back foot approach. Least not forget the deputy Publuc Health director saying cares homes would largely be uneffected. Along with the PPE issues etc I think the Government has been catch up since day 1 of lockdown. Along with a track and trace system disbanded because it could only cope with minimal numbers.
The question is why has German taken thisvseriouslt and UK government didn't?
The Spruce Goose said:
ORD said:
I disagree with the suggestion that the government dismissed the severity. It got it about right in early March -
Well top scientists said a lockdiwn a week earlier lockdown would have prevented up to 20k deaths, I think that on it's own highlights the back foot approach. Least not forget the deputy Publuc Health director saying cares homes would largely be uneffected. Along with the PPE issues etc I think the Government has been catch up since day 1 of lockdown. Along with a track and trace system disbanded because it could only cope with minimal numbers.
The question is why has German taken thisvseriouslt and UK government didn't?
grumbledoak said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Well top scientists said a lockdiwn a week earlier lockdown would have prevented up to 20k deaths, I think that on it's own highlights the back foot approach.
Is this the same "top scientists" who said we would have 500,000 deaths if we didn't lockdown?Yet more “scientists” pulling numbers out of their arses.
The Spruce Goose said:
Well top scientists said a lockdiwn a week earlier lockdown would have prevented up to 20k deaths, I think that on it's own highlights the back foot approach.
Least not forget the deputy Publuc Health director saying cares homes would largely be uneffected. Along with the PPE issues etc I think the Government has been catch up since day 1 of lockdown. Along with a track and trace system disbanded because it could only cope with minimal numbers.
The question is why has German taken thisvseriouslt and UK government didn't?
How would it prevent that many deaths? Most of them would simply occur later. No lockdown fetishists ever address that point. SAGE stated it unequivocally back in March (before hysteria took hold). All lockdowns do is shift cases to a later point.Least not forget the deputy Publuc Health director saying cares homes would largely be uneffected. Along with the PPE issues etc I think the Government has been catch up since day 1 of lockdown. Along with a track and trace system disbanded because it could only cope with minimal numbers.
The question is why has German taken thisvseriouslt and UK government didn't?
One upside is that treatment seem to have been improved. That is an advantage of lockdown. I doubt it was worth hundreds of billions of pounds.
ORD said:
I disagree with the suggestion that the government dismissed the severity. It got it about right in early March - it’s a highly infectious but not very harmful respiratory disease and will sweep through the population but leave the vast vast majority absolutely fine.
The government dramatically overestimated the British public, however. It did not realise that there is no willingness to tolerate any adversity and no tolerance for tough decisions.
Agree. In early March I was very concerned. Since early April we have hysterically overreacted. The government dramatically overestimated the British public, however. It did not realise that there is no willingness to tolerate any adversity and no tolerance for tough decisions.
isaldiri said:
grumbledoak said:
Some interesting stuff by the ex director of the Swiss Institute for Immunology translated here:
https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigkeit/coronav...
He is quite opinionated on the whole "novel" and "no immunity" claims, plus some useful explanations on immune system and PCR tests.
Keep up at the back I linked that a couple of days ago. https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigkeit/coronav...
He is quite opinionated on the whole "novel" and "no immunity" claims, plus some useful explanations on immune system and PCR tests.
I think most virologists and immunologists have taken the view that assuming some heterologous immunity is a risky message to disseminate, so have stuck to the null-hypothesis that exposure to other coronaviruses confers no immunity to this one. I can see why they would say that.
ORD said:
The government dramatically overestimated the British public, however. It did not realise that there is no willingness to tolerate any adversity and no tolerance for tough decisions.
That is very easy to say, unless it is your granny, your dad, your brother who catches it and dies. The problem is that there was little nuance to the lockdown, and little effort to identify and protect those at risk while letting those not at risk carry on with life as normally as possible. We didn't do enough to protect the elderly, but did too much to protect the kids and the people in lower risk groups.
Condi said:
That is very easy to say, unless it is your granny, your dad, your brother who catches it and dies.
The problem is that there was little nuance to the lockdown, and little effort to identify and protect those at risk while letting those not at risk carry on with life as normally as possible. We didn't do enough to protect the elderly, but did too much to protect the kids and the people in lower risk groups.
As I remember SAGE - at least some of them - were of the opinion that it was impossible to protect the old, so we had to lock everyone up.The problem is that there was little nuance to the lockdown, and little effort to identify and protect those at risk while letting those not at risk carry on with life as normally as possible. We didn't do enough to protect the elderly, but did too much to protect the kids and the people in lower risk groups.
I don't think that was true.
The thing is, a 45 year old with Covid might get ill and could spread it to others who may or may not get ill themselves. A very small percentage will die.
A 45 year old with cancer will almost certainly have vastly reduced life expectancy if they don't get diagnosed or treated.
Is it better to let those people die of cancer to protect the extremely small number of people who might die from Covid as a result of the cancer patient visiting hospital?
A 45 year old with cancer will almost certainly have vastly reduced life expectancy if they don't get diagnosed or treated.
Is it better to let those people die of cancer to protect the extremely small number of people who might die from Covid as a result of the cancer patient visiting hospital?
Condi said:
That is very easy to say, unless it is your granny, your dad, your brother who catches it and dies.
The problem is that there was little nuance to the lockdown, and little effort to identify and protect those at risk while letting those not at risk carry on with life as normally as possible. We didn't do enough to protect the elderly, but did too much to protect the kids and the people in lower risk groups.
CondiThe problem is that there was little nuance to the lockdown, and little effort to identify and protect those at risk while letting those not at risk carry on with life as normally as possible. We didn't do enough to protect the elderly, but did too much to protect the kids and the people in lower risk groups.
It wasn't that there was no nuance, it just did not pass a common sense test. Folk in care homes were always sitting ducks for this.
As was anyone north of 75 yrs old with co-existing conditions.
ALL should have been isolated, self imposed and supported by us. They could have been kept at the Ritz, with hazmat room service.
Condi said:
That is very easy to say, unless it is your granny, your dad, your brother who catches it and dies.
The problem is that there was little nuance to the lockdown, and little effort to identify and protect those at risk while letting those not at risk carry on with life as normally as possible. We didn't do enough to protect the elderly, but did too much to protect the kids and the people in lower risk groups.
I did in fact lose my father-in-law to Covid.The problem is that there was little nuance to the lockdown, and little effort to identify and protect those at risk while letting those not at risk carry on with life as normally as possible. We didn't do enough to protect the elderly, but did too much to protect the kids and the people in lower risk groups.
I am sick of this idea that anyone who doesn’t embrace outright panic is heartless. It is so infantile.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff