CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)
Discussion
Newc said:
Herd immunity seen in the North Italian areas that had the biggest spread of cases in the spring.
Not my words Lynn, the words of the Economist.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/3...
The valleys of the shadow of death
Italian towns hit hardest by covid-19 are doing better now
Municipal data reveal signs of partial population-level immunity
Graphic detail
Oct 31st 2020 edition
I think you are muddled up. Nadine Dorries and Matt Hancock said herd immunity was not a 'thing'. Not my words Lynn, the words of the Economist.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/3...
The valleys of the shadow of death
Italian towns hit hardest by covid-19 are doing better now
Municipal data reveal signs of partial population-level immunity
Graphic detail
Oct 31st 2020 edition
They are medically qualified aren't they?
markyb_lcy said:
Thin White Duke said:
I was going to come on here tonight and ask for opinions on forming a true anti lockdown movement, however I see that there is something called Time for Recovery.
Does anyone know who is behind this and does it include any heavy hitters? Will it achieve anything, given the Great Barrington Declaration seems to have fallen by the wayside?
I’m also looking for a movement to get behind, but I can’t offer my support, financial or otherwise, until I’m sure of the personalities in the background.Does anyone know who is behind this and does it include any heavy hitters? Will it achieve anything, given the Great Barrington Declaration seems to have fallen by the wayside?
This outfit publish nothing on their site about that.
One would have to dig through the directors names available from Companies House ...
https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...
A couple of them appear to have directorships of other companies related to marketing and management consultancy.
In terms of public figures, they have Lord Sumption, Harvey Goldsmith, Karol Sikora, Emma Kenny, Ann Brees. Retweets today by Sue Cook and Right Said Fred.
It doesn't seem to be political, beyond this current crisis.
johnboy1975 said:
So, we've all been for "whilst hospitals aren't overran, carry on as normal as possible, wash your hands and give people a bit of space where possible".
The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?
Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?
Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?
Theres never been any "good" solutions, but previously there was at least a "least bad" option (which the government almost unerringly seemed to do the opposite of, but hey). Now however, there are just two monumentally s
t options left.
Dont get me wrong, I'm still in the "hold our nerve" camp, but all the hopes of massive x immunity @ circa 50% ( which would provide a good degree of herd immunity with the 10-20% already infected) seem to be coming off the tracks, at least slightly. The numbers need to fall, and soon, but with testing @ 400k being reported in the same vein as when testing was at 200k, and we are due 500k tests a day in the next couple of days...
IF lockdowns didnt work, it would be easy.....no choice but option 1. However I think its fairer to say that they do work (if done properly, and if your aim is to delay deaths and hospitalizations, rather than save lives and eliminate covid), but at a prohibitively high cost
We were told that the reasons behind the original lockdown were to give the NHS time to prepare and to understand more about the virus and how best to treat it.The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?
Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?
Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?
Theres never been any "good" solutions, but previously there was at least a "least bad" option (which the government almost unerringly seemed to do the opposite of, but hey). Now however, there are just two monumentally s
t options left.Dont get me wrong, I'm still in the "hold our nerve" camp, but all the hopes of massive x immunity @ circa 50% ( which would provide a good degree of herd immunity with the 10-20% already infected) seem to be coming off the tracks, at least slightly. The numbers need to fall, and soon, but with testing @ 400k being reported in the same vein as when testing was at 200k, and we are due 500k tests a day in the next couple of days...
IF lockdowns didnt work, it would be easy.....no choice but option 1. However I think its fairer to say that they do work (if done properly, and if your aim is to delay deaths and hospitalizations, rather than save lives and eliminate covid), but at a prohibitively high cost
We do now know better how to treat it but it seems the opportunity to prepare the NHS were otherwise squandered. We never really seem to have come with a "plan" as to how we'd deal with a second wave and low and behold now its here, its the economy and society thats having to suffer again.
Why are hospitals so close to capacity when we are supposed to have these Nightingale Hospitals stood up again? Why arent people being diverted directly to Nightingales to allow hospitals to otherwise function? Why am i seeing warnings about how oxygen may have to be rationed in hospitals (Altnagelvin, Northern Ireland for one) even though oxygen seems to be one of the basic requirements for successful COVID hospital treatment?
If they're asking us to go in to lockdown again (and lets be honest, it does seem that the propaganda machine is moving us nicely that direction) then whats it for this time? From what i can see its just to get the number of "cases" down, with no other changes going to be made to prevent another lockdown when the infection rate goes back up again.
WHY have we so few ICU beds? Here in Northern Ireland we have something like 110 for the entire country - per capita thats among the worst in Europe and certainly in the lowest quartile of the developed world). Mainland UK isnt much better. In a typical winter we see maybe 90% occupancy of those. Did no
think, "fk, we're going to run out of beds here lads very quickly during any sort of second wave"?If they can say "we need to go in to lockdown but by the time we are out of lockdown and cases rise again we will have done X, Y, Z which will prevent our hospitals being overrun" fine. But a lockdown, then another lockdown again, then another lockdown again??
johnboy1975 said:
So, we've all been for "whilst hospitals aren't overran, carry on as normal as possible, wash your hands and give people a bit of space where possible".
The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?
Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?
Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?
...
I wonder if it would be possible to increase the capacity of medical facilities temporarily to deal with a wave of infections?The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?
Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?
Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?
...
Perhaps some temporary facilities could be built?
Perhaps they could be located at large venues that will be unused thanks to being closed 'because Covid'?
Perhaps we could name them after a medical figure from history in order to give them a catchy and memorable name that implies we care?
Of course, it would be totally stupid to build such facilities at vast cost, then not use them and mothball them / close them down during a summer period where infections are lower generally...
Here's Dr John Campbell debunking the fearmongering headlines from yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awc0bN07Aac
Note the data on healthcare workers not losing antibodies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awc0bN07Aac
Note the data on healthcare workers not losing antibodies.
FlabbyMidgets said:
Pupp said:
See Google through a UK ISP now seem to be suppressing search results on that new lobby group. (a la the GBD); that, to me, is very concerning
Can't find it on Google myself at all, tried a few different search termsDeep Thought said:
johnboy1975 said:
So, we've all been for "whilst hospitals aren't overran, carry on as normal as possible, wash your hands and give people a bit of space where possible".
The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?
Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?
Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?
Theres never been any "good" solutions, but previously there was at least a "least bad" option (which the government almost unerringly seemed to do the opposite of, but hey). Now however, there are just two monumentally st options left.
Dont get me wrong, I'm still in the "hold our nerve" camp, but all the hopes of massive x immunity @ circa 50% ( which would provide a good degree of herd immunity with the 10-20% already infected) seem to be coming off the tracks, at least slightly. The numbers need to fall, and soon, but with testing @ 400k being reported in the same vein as when testing was at 200k, and we are due 500k tests a day in the next couple of days...
IF lockdowns didnt work, it would be easy.....no choice but option 1. However I think its fairer to say that they do work (if done properly, and if your aim is to delay deaths and hospitalizations, rather than save lives and eliminate covid), but at a prohibitively high cost
We were told that the reasons behind the original lockdown were to give the NHS time to prepare and to understand more about the virus and how best to treat it.The problem is, now hospitals ARE getting close to capacity, what now?
Carry on, even at 100%, 110%, 120% of capacity? Whilst "karen" and her ilk scream ever louder for a lockdown?
Or lockdown, hopefully ease a bit of pressure on the NHS, and be back here in a months time?
Theres never been any "good" solutions, but previously there was at least a "least bad" option (which the government almost unerringly seemed to do the opposite of, but hey). Now however, there are just two monumentally s
t options left.Dont get me wrong, I'm still in the "hold our nerve" camp, but all the hopes of massive x immunity @ circa 50% ( which would provide a good degree of herd immunity with the 10-20% already infected) seem to be coming off the tracks, at least slightly. The numbers need to fall, and soon, but with testing @ 400k being reported in the same vein as when testing was at 200k, and we are due 500k tests a day in the next couple of days...
IF lockdowns didnt work, it would be easy.....no choice but option 1. However I think its fairer to say that they do work (if done properly, and if your aim is to delay deaths and hospitalizations, rather than save lives and eliminate covid), but at a prohibitively high cost
We do now know better how to treat it but it seems the opportunity to prepare the NHS were otherwise squandered. We never really seem to have come with a "plan" as to how we'd deal with a second wave and low and behold now its here, its the economy and society thats having to suffer again.
Why are hospitals so close to capacity when we are supposed to have these Nightingale Hospitals stood up again? Why arent people being diverted directly to Nightingales to allow hospitals to otherwise function? Why am i seeing warnings about how oxygen may have to be rationed in hospitals (Altnagelvin, Northern Ireland for one) even though oxygen seems to be one of the basic requirements for successful COVID hospital treatment?
If they're asking us to go in to lockdown again (and lets be honest, it does seem that the propaganda machine is moving us nicely that direction) then whats it for this time? From what i can see its just to get the number of "cases" down, with no other changes going to be made to prevent another lockdown when the infection rate goes back up again.
WHY have we so few ICU beds? Here in Northern Ireland we have something like 110 for the entire country. In a typical winter we see maybe 90% occupancy of those. Did no
think, "fk, we're going to run out of beds here lads very quickly during any sort of second wave"?If they can say "we need to go in to lockdown but by the time we are out of lockdown and cases rise again we will have done X, Y, Z which will prevent our hospitals being overrun" fine. But a lockdown, then another lockdown again, then another lockdown again??
ked it over, over that last 20 years.My local NHS Authority has been in ‘ special measures’ for the last 5+ years due to their incompetence, but not a murmur from anyone on this front
"Cases are not surging" - Tim Spector from the ZOE app survey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
grumbledoak said:
CrutyRammers said:
It matters when that is given prominence in the national press. It's not good enough to say "it's only an interim figure", soundbites and headlines are what people hear
Big headlines. Tiny corrections on page 12. It's just lying, really.If we consider it in reverse, what's more scary - falling off a cliff or a walk down a gentle slope?
king arthur said:
"Cases are not surging" - Tim Spector from the ZOE app survey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
Some good, no-nonsense basic analysis. If only these were the daily updates people were watching instead of the mainstream news doom-mongering.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
Not directly related to anything in particular, but this is good news 
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/bbc-...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/bbc-...
Guardian said:
BBC journalists told not to 'virtue signal' in social media crackdown
BBC journalists have been told to avoid any online “virtual signalling” that could indicate a personal political view, as part of a crackdown on their social media accounts by the new director general, Tim Davie.
The rules announced on Thursday explicitly state that all BBC employees’ social media accounts – even if labelled as a personal account – should be considered to be subject to public scrutiny.
Staff working in the BBC’s news division have been told to avoid expressing a view on any policy that is a matter of current political debate, or publicly supporting campaigns “no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial”.
BBC journalists have been told to avoid any online “virtual signalling” that could indicate a personal political view, as part of a crackdown on their social media accounts by the new director general, Tim Davie.
The rules announced on Thursday explicitly state that all BBC employees’ social media accounts – even if labelled as a personal account – should be considered to be subject to public scrutiny.
Staff working in the BBC’s news division have been told to avoid expressing a view on any policy that is a matter of current political debate, or publicly supporting campaigns “no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial”.
markyb_lcy said:
king arthur said:
"Cases are not surging" - Tim Spector from the ZOE app survey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
Some good, no-nonsense basic analysis. If only these were the daily updates people were watching instead of the mainstream news doom-mongering.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
https://twitter.com/timspector
Taylor James said:
In view of the reservations that exist over both the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, surely it's only sensible and pragmatic leadership for every MP and their family to publicly receive it, observed by true independents. That could be quickly followed by anyone else that tells us what to do - so start with Council heads, Police chiefs, NHS Directors and Consultants, etc, then work down.
It would be mandatory for them to have the vaccine or they would need to relinquish their position. Or, to keep libertarians happy, you would give them the right to refuse and not have to justify it, to keep their job and go about their life as normal. Obviously, that would need to apply to every other citizen as well...
What will happen is that the plebs will be instructed to take the vaccine, which will be compulsory by stealth (no vax = no passport, etc) but our illustrious leaders will be able to do whatever they like.
It would be mandatory for them to have the vaccine or they would need to relinquish their position. Or, to keep libertarians happy, you would give them the right to refuse and not have to justify it, to keep their job and go about their life as normal. Obviously, that would need to apply to every other citizen as well...
What will happen is that the plebs will be instructed to take the vaccine, which will be compulsory by stealth (no vax = no passport, etc) but our illustrious leaders will be able to do whatever they like.
This is an excellent idea.
I expect that lots will do as Tony Bliar did when he refused to confirm or deny whether his son had had the MMR vaccine (IIRC).
EddieSteadyGo said:
markyb_lcy said:
king arthur said:
"Cases are not surging" - Tim Spector from the ZOE app survey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
Some good, no-nonsense basic analysis. If only these were the daily updates people were watching instead of the mainstream news doom-mongering.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SwbhDIdxY
https://twitter.com/timspector
Now I know the chap’s name he’s on my radar.
In fact I think I’ve seen him pop up in some Spectator articles.
RSTurboPaul said:
Not directly related to anything in particular, but this is good news
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/bbc-...
Yes and no.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/bbc-...
One can’t help but wonder if this is more about the govt wanting the “right kind” of virtue signalling from the BBC and the Beeb, under threat from govt.
Further, it is my opinion that private citizens during non work time, should be free to hold and express any view that they wish (within some reason).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff