CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

tonker

60,733 posts

212 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
So the manaus variant.

Guess who seems to have done the modelling? And come up with hysterical results

The count from Sesame Street?
The mild mannered janitor?
Shagger Ferguson and Imperial ?

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CADDE-CENTRE/Nov...

According to dead or alive

https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1...

Edited by tonker on Wednesday 3rd March 21:35

Red Devil

12,441 posts

172 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
MikeT66 said:
I'd have one caveat on that apology, Gary - that we do not return to this inhuman and anti-democratic madness again in September. Even if everything turns out OK, I think this is the closest we've come to effectively losing our democracy and way of life, and we must make procedural steps to ensure it does not happen again.
Whether you agree with it or not. A democratically elected government, largely supported by the democratically elected opposition and the democratically elected devolved administrations, passing laws to introduce restrictions, which are broadly supported by the majority, seems to be the definition of democracy at work.
"We run a civilised aristocratic government machine tempered by occasional General Elections. Since 1832 we have been gradually excluding the voter from government. Now we've got them to a point where they just vote once every five years for which bunch of buffoons will try to interfere with OUR policies"

The above was uttered 30 years ago. OUR refers to high level civil servants.
The question now is who behind the scenes is effectively pulling the policy strings besides the bureaucrats?
For starters look at the make-up of SAGE and it's sub-groups. Then look at the money trail and vested interests.

As Henry Kissinger trenchantly said "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac".
When it is wielded by powerful individuals without a mandate there is not the slightest fig leaf of accountability.

On the subject of popular support, in 1932 NASDAP gained a considerable (but not absolute) majority of the vote and seats in the Reichstag. People need to careful what they wish for.
Too many people fail to understand how fragile an institution democracy is. Especially now in the UK where there is no effective Opposition and Parliament is effectively a rubber stamp.

Lastly, some pertinent quotes by the philosopher George Santayana.

"Theory helps us to bear our ignorance of fact."
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


monkfish1

8,936 posts

188 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
bern said:
Graveworm said:
bern said:
Thanks for sharing that. Incredible.

Still it's the very definition of democracy init G'worm?
So are all the other thousands of SIs every year undemocratic? 99.5% of the coronavirus related ones and all of the ones that form the regulations, could have been stopped by parliamentary vote and 30% were voted on.
The people signing the SIs are all democratically elected, courts and parliament can overturn them and hold them to account. The opposition agreeing makes all this mute.
Elected governments, making laws, is democracy, it doesn't mean that elected governments can't be wicked or wrong and go on to be evil but, until such time they stop you standing for parliament or voting them out (And I didn't vote for them in the first place), it is democracy.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 3rd March 16:08
So once you're voted in it's a free reign? No parliamentary scrutiny, no oversight. Just wave through the biggest change in this countries governance ever on a Wednesday afternoon when all the MP's have fked off for Easter. No biggie.

What's the point of 630 MP's? We could just have a dozen or so minister's, we could call it a politburo maybe?
The problem is, its the 630 MP's that voted to give the government free reign to do whatever it wanted. Whilst HMG must take the blame, those 630 MP's are the enablers of that. THEY voted to give away our freedoms. They are your elected representatives.

The worst thing of all is the same MP's keep voting for more of the same.

Technically its democratic. They could vote against the emergency powers when they come up for renewal and deprive HMG of many of the levers its currently deploying.. But they wont, bar 50 or so that actually have a spine. Makes you wonder why?


bodhi

6,194 posts

193 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Chromegrill said:
Interesting that the idea of simply keeping virtually everyone at home for a few weeks to eliminate the coronavirus is proposed, and immediately jumped upon from a great height by many here as totally unworkable. I don't disagree.

However, there were plenty of people on this forum a while back plugging something even more draconian, namely that we should identify and lock down all the old and clinically vulnerable for a year or more, then let everyone else get on with life. It was called the Great Barrington Declaration. I was never sure who would be looking after the old and vulnerable, and whether they would also (along with their families and children) be expected to be in the locked down population or not. I argued then, and still do, that it was completely unworkable for exactly the same reasons that people here are arguing that eight weeks of strict Wuhan style lockdown would never be acceptable here.
Considering the number of deaths we've had from nursing homes, and the number of hospital acquired infections, it's incredibly difficult to see lockdown as anything else other than a complete and utter failure in terms of protecting the vulnerable - in fact lockdowns were previously not recommended at all for this very reason - they spread the burden of the disease straight onto the vulnerable. So I'm failing to see how the Great Barrington Declaration could have been any worse, but the good news is that they did think of that - good write up of it below:

https://quillette.com/2021/03/02/lockdown-sceptici...

Use staff who had already recovered from COVID (considering GB was written in June/July time they wouldn't have been too difficult to locate by that point) and testing for all visitors, plus deliveries for the elderly and vulnerable (y'know, like that couple of million people we shielded on top of lockdown).

I'm still utterly baffled as to why we didn't entrust our response to some actual infectious disease epidemiologists, rather than the assorted physicists, behavioural psychologists and nutritionists we ended up with. Ah well, maybe next time eh?

bodhi

6,194 posts

193 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
tonker said:
So the manaus variant.

Guess who seems to have done the modelling? And come up with hysterical results

The count from Sesame Street?
The mild mannered janitor?
Shagger Ferguson and Imperial ?

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CADDE-CENTRE/Nov...

According to dead or alive

https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1...

Edited by tonker on Wednesday 3rd March 21:35
Liking this follow up comment from the chap who initially found the issue with the 76% figure:

https://twitter.com/WesPegden/status/1367226388021...



V8 Stang

4,132 posts

147 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
R Mutt said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I mean how many people know you should be disposing of the blue masks after 4-6hrs of use? (there are a few papers showing their effectiveness degrades after this time, and it’s PHE advice), That you should be washing those cloth reusable ones at least once a day? That you should be storing the mask folded neatly inside a ziplock bag? (Some of this is PHE advice, some CDC etc).



Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 2nd March 20:35
A dental nurse told me she'd have to dispose of them every half hour (presumably between patients)

Edited by R Mutt on Wednesday 3rd March 20:15
The disposable in my glove box has been on the go since September. hehe



johnboy1975

2,955 posts

72 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
bodhi said:
Chromegrill said:
Interesting that the idea of simply keeping virtually everyone at home for a few weeks to eliminate the coronavirus is proposed, and immediately jumped upon from a great height by many here as totally unworkable. I don't disagree.

However, there were plenty of people on this forum a while back plugging something even more draconian, namely that we should identify and lock down all the old and clinically vulnerable for a year or more, then let everyone else get on with life. It was called the Great Barrington Declaration. I was never sure who would be looking after the old and vulnerable, and whether they would also (along with their families and children) be expected to be in the locked down population or not. I argued then, and still do, that it was completely unworkable for exactly the same reasons that people here are arguing that eight weeks of strict Wuhan style lockdown would never be acceptable here.
Considering the number of deaths we've had from nursing homes, and the number of hospital acquired infections, it's incredibly difficult to see lockdown as anything else other than a complete and utter failure in terms of protecting the vulnerable - in fact lockdowns were previously not recommended at all for this very reason - they spread the burden of the disease straight onto the vulnerable. So I'm failing to see how the Great Barrington Declaration could have been any worse, but the good news is that they did think of that - good write up of it below:

https://quillette.com/2021/03/02/lockdown-sceptici...

Use staff who had already recovered from COVID (considering GB was written in June/July time they wouldn't have been too difficult to locate by that point) and testing for all visitors, plus deliveries for the elderly and vulnerable (y'know, like that couple of million people we shielded on top of lockdown).

I'm still utterly baffled as to why we didn't entrust our response to some actual infectious disease epidemiologists, rather than the assorted physicists, behavioural psychologists and nutritionists we ended up with. Ah well, maybe next time eh?
The main problem with GB is you could have had 120k deaths at 1/4 of the price, and been hounded out of office for the "terrible death rate" and " if we had locked down properly it would only have been 50k (as shown by this model from Imperial"

Although I will admit the 'leaky bits' (NHS, carehomes, possibly schools) are problematic and whilst you could probably throw some money at the care homes, asymptomatic people rocking up to hospital blows the red light / green light system out the water IF asymptomatic transmission is high (or to a lesser extent) if possible at all

Ntv

2,189 posts

87 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Does anyone here believe furlough in July and August will actually add value to the economy?

Does anyone here believe paying billions in furlough in those months would be a better use of public
money than trying seriously to repair some of the damage done to our children and young people, rather
than the scraps they've been thrown?

bodhi

6,194 posts

193 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
johnboy1975 said:
bodhi said:
Chromegrill said:
Interesting that the idea of simply keeping virtually everyone at home for a few weeks to eliminate the coronavirus is proposed, and immediately jumped upon from a great height by many here as totally unworkable. I don't disagree.

However, there were plenty of people on this forum a while back plugging something even more draconian, namely that we should identify and lock down all the old and clinically vulnerable for a year or more, then let everyone else get on with life. It was called the Great Barrington Declaration. I was never sure who would be looking after the old and vulnerable, and whether they would also (along with their families and children) be expected to be in the locked down population or not. I argued then, and still do, that it was completely unworkable for exactly the same reasons that people here are arguing that eight weeks of strict Wuhan style lockdown would never be acceptable here.
Considering the number of deaths we've had from nursing homes, and the number of hospital acquired infections, it's incredibly difficult to see lockdown as anything else other than a complete and utter failure in terms of protecting the vulnerable - in fact lockdowns were previously not recommended at all for this very reason - they spread the burden of the disease straight onto the vulnerable. So I'm failing to see how the Great Barrington Declaration could have been any worse, but the good news is that they did think of that - good write up of it below:

https://quillette.com/2021/03/02/lockdown-sceptici...

Use staff who had already recovered from COVID (considering GB was written in June/July time they wouldn't have been too difficult to locate by that point) and testing for all visitors, plus deliveries for the elderly and vulnerable (y'know, like that couple of million people we shielded on top of lockdown).

I'm still utterly baffled as to why we didn't entrust our response to some actual infectious disease epidemiologists, rather than the assorted physicists, behavioural psychologists and nutritionists we ended up with. Ah well, maybe next time eh?
The main problem with GB is you could have had 120k deaths at 1/4 of the price, and been hounded out of office for the "terrible death rate" and " if we had locked down properly it would only have been 50k (as shown by this model from Imperial"

Although I will admit the 'leaky bits' (NHS, carehomes, possibly schools) are problematic and whilst you could probably throw some money at the care homes, asymptomatic people rocking up to hospital blows the red light / green light system out the water IF asymptomatic transmission is high (or to a lesser extent) if possible at all
Oh yes undoubtedly, as described by that excellent essay posted from the Oxford Researcher a few days ago. We would have had Piers "Karen" Morgan on GMB every morning screaming "Why won't you DO something!!!"?" - even though if you suggested locking down 66 million people 3 months prior people would have looked at you as if you had 3 heads.

Not sure who I'd go to for pandemic advice first however, Piers and Susanna or Gupta and co - that is a tough one smile

With hindsight I'm not sure we should have concerned ourselves too much with asymptomatic transmission, as most of the research recently suggests its minimal at best - but just think if we'd put all the effort into the "leaky bits" as we had criminalizing Grandma for walking 2 miles for a coffee - and what a better state we'd all be in.


Smollet

6,242 posts

154 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
jimmythingy said:
I've just found out today that my dentist is no longer doing NHS work after the the 1st May so I will have pay £16 per month each for the wife and I. This has been blamed on Covid and NHS funding cutbacks.

Also three other dentists in the area have done the same and the others have 3 year waiting lists.

Speaking to one practice, they said that due to Covid they are seeing half less patients but there substantial operating costs have not changed and can't see this changing for a long while.

I see the future will be paying for more NHS services
I haven’t been to a dentist in 17 years. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. They’re one of the biggest rip offs going imgo

Ntv

2,189 posts

87 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
V8 Stang said:
R Mutt said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I mean how many people know you should be disposing of the blue masks after 4-6hrs of use? (there are a few papers showing their effectiveness degrades after this time, and it’s PHE advice), That you should be washing those cloth reusable ones at least once a day? That you should be storing the mask folded neatly inside a ziplock bag? (Some of this is PHE advice, some CDC etc).



Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 2nd March 20:35
A dental nurse told me she'd have to dispose of them every half hour (presumably between patients)

Edited by R Mutt on Wednesday 3rd March 20:15
The disposable in my glove box has been on the go since September. hehe
I have a snood that has never been washed. Seen me through one pandemic and no doubt it will still be going strong and up for it when the next one strikes

Steve vRS

4,091 posts

205 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Ntv said:
I have a snood that has never been washed. Seen me through one pandemic and no doubt it will still be going strong and up for it when the next one strikes
All I use are snoods or buffs but I do wash them every day, if not for anyone else but for my own hygiene. Do you follow the same logic with pants?

isaldiri

11,598 posts

132 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Chromegrill said:
However, there were plenty of people on this forum a while back plugging something even more draconian, namely that we should identify and lock down all the old and clinically vulnerable for a year or more, then let everyone else get on with life. It was called the Great Barrington Declaration. I was never sure who would be looking after the old and vulnerable, and whether they would also (along with their families and children) be expected to be in the locked down population or not. I argued then, and still do, that it was completely unworkable for exactly the same reasons that people here are arguing that eight weeks of strict Wuhan style lockdown would never be acceptable here.
Complete and utter hogwash. The GBD never at any point called for 'locking up all the old and vulnaerable for a year or more' as you claim. It merely stated that much more effort and measures should be put into helping to protect that group without exactly specifying how but it damn well wasn't locking them up Wuhan style by welding them in and have the military outside their homes.

People like you and mattmurdock were so sure it couldn't be done apart from locking up everyone else en masse and never seemingly even bothered to think about even trying to do anything extra to protect the most vulnerable groups. Guess what - just look at what did happen to care homes. Since November when there was the general lockdown cases had been going right through those very places and a whole heap of old people died. I hope you feel vindicated about your belief in the effectiveness of general lockdowns.

Alucidnation

15,881 posts

134 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Steve vRS said:
Ntv said:
I have a snood that has never been washed. Seen me through one pandemic and no doubt it will still be going strong and up for it when the next one strikes
All I use are snoods or buffs but I do wash them every day, if not for anyone else but for my own hygiene. Do you follow the same logic with pants?
hehe

cherryowen

9,851 posts

168 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Ntv said:
I have a snood that has never been washed. Seen me through one pandemic and no doubt it will still be going strong and up for it when the next one strikes
I've had a Harry Potter themed mask since July, which has a "self-cleaning" Patronus smile





johnboy1975

2,955 posts

72 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
bodhi said:
johnboy1975 said:
bodhi said:
Chromegrill said:
Interesting that the idea of simply keeping virtually everyone at home for a few weeks to eliminate the coronavirus is proposed, and immediately jumped upon from a great height by many here as totally unworkable. I don't disagree.

However, there were plenty of people on this forum a while back plugging something even more draconian, namely that we should identify and lock down all the old and clinically vulnerable for a year or more, then let everyone else get on with life. It was called the Great Barrington Declaration. I was never sure who would be looking after the old and vulnerable, and whether they would also (along with their families and children) be expected to be in the locked down population or not. I argued then, and still do, that it was completely unworkable for exactly the same reasons that people here are arguing that eight weeks of strict Wuhan style lockdown would never be acceptable here.
Considering the number of deaths we've had from nursing homes, and the number of hospital acquired infections, it's incredibly difficult to see lockdown as anything else other than a complete and utter failure in terms of protecting the vulnerable - in fact lockdowns were previously not recommended at all for this very reason - they spread the burden of the disease straight onto the vulnerable. So I'm failing to see how the Great Barrington Declaration could have been any worse, but the good news is that they did think of that - good write up of it below:

https://quillette.com/2021/03/02/lockdown-sceptici...

Use staff who had already recovered from COVID (considering GB was written in June/July time they wouldn't have been too difficult to locate by that point) and testing for all visitors, plus deliveries for the elderly and vulnerable (y'know, like that couple of million people we shielded on top of lockdown).

I'm still utterly baffled as to why we didn't entrust our response to some actual infectious disease epidemiologists, rather than the assorted physicists, behavioural psychologists and nutritionists we ended up with. Ah well, maybe next time eh?
The main problem with GB is you could have had 120k deaths at 1/4 of the price, and been hounded out of office for the "terrible death rate" and " if we had locked down properly it would only have been 50k (as shown by this model from Imperial"

Although I will admit the 'leaky bits' (NHS, carehomes, possibly schools) are problematic and whilst you could probably throw some money at the care homes, asymptomatic people rocking up to hospital blows the red light / green light system out the water IF asymptomatic transmission is high (or to a lesser extent) if possible at all
Oh yes undoubtedly, as described by that excellent essay posted from the Oxford Researcher a few days ago. We would have had Piers "Karen" Morgan on GMB every morning screaming "Why won't you DO something!!!"?" - even though if you suggested locking down 66 million people 3 months prior people would have looked at you as if you had 3 heads.

Not sure who I'd go to for pandemic advice first however, Piers and Susanna or Gupta and co - that is a tough one smile

With hindsight I'm not sure we should have concerned ourselves too much with asymptomatic transmission, as most of the research recently suggests its minimal at best - but just think if we'd put all the effort into the "leaky bits" as we had criminalizing Grandma for walking 2 miles for a coffee - and what a better state we'd all be in.
I'm fully on board smile (just acknowledging the problems)

You could minimise the time to deal with the problematic bits by "letting it rip" (whilst attempting to shield the vunerable). I'm sure we could have gotten the 150k up to 1m a day in short order with a R0 of 3 and within a month it would have petered out naturally. So 2 months max (dealing with the tail etc). If I was vunerable, I'd take 2 months of isolation over 1 year plus

Not least because, even if 200,000 sadly lose their lives through covid, they would have "had a good innings" so to speak. I firmly believe at least half of the 123k were on borrowed time anyway (would we even of heard of Capt Tom if he had passed away peacefully at the age of 100 after a bout of flu?)

And I'm no fan of giving dementia sufferers another 18 months

Appreciate that doesn't cover all the deaths, and there will (obviously) be tragedies amongst those who died. But I think the collateral damage will be equal to, or greater than, what we've seen directly from covid.

scottyp123

2,151 posts

20 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Ntv said:
V8 Stang said:
R Mutt said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I mean how many people know you should be disposing of the blue masks after 4-6hrs of use? (there are a few papers showing their effectiveness degrades after this time, and it’s PHE advice), That you should be washing those cloth reusable ones at least once a day? That you should be storing the mask folded neatly inside a ziplock bag? (Some of this is PHE advice, some CDC etc).



Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 2nd March 20:35
A dental nurse told me she'd have to dispose of them every half hour (presumably between patients)

Edited by R Mutt on Wednesday 3rd March 20:15
The disposable in my glove box has been on the go since September. hehe
I have a snood that has never been washed. Seen me through one pandemic and no doubt it will still be going strong and up for it when the next one strikes
Despite me swearing that I would never wear one I'll admit to putting one on albeit very briefly, we have been getting paid in cash but I still need to bank it so I used a Barclays cash machine inside ASDA to deposit the cash. To save any agro I got a mask out of our van and used it to get past the front of house in ASDA. I took it off as soon as I was past him but my god when I had it on it stunk rotten, I don't know where it had been or who had been using it but fk me it was bad, how they say a mask is good for you fk only knows.


Misanthrope

443 posts

9 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Elysium said:
Graveworm said:
bern said:
Thanks for sharing that. Incredible.

Still it's the very definition of democracy init G'worm?
So are all the other thousands of SIs every year undemocratic? 99.5% of the coronavirus related ones and all of the ones that form the regulations, could have been stopped by parliamentary vote and 30% were voted on.
The people signing the SIs are all democratically elected, courts and parliament can overturn them and hold them to account. The opposition agreeing makes all this mute.
Elected governments, making laws, is democracy, it doesn't mean that elected governments can't be wicked or wrong and go on to be evil but, until such time they stop you standing for parliament or voting them out (And I didn't vote for them in the first place), it is democracy.
It is a failure of our democracy. Most SI's are are mundane in comparison to the current situation. It is not remotely normal or usual to pass regulations so quickly and easily that intrude on human rights to this extent. Parliament has been deliberately sidelined by the approach the Govt have taken, but Labours almost complete capitulation means it was largely unnecessary.

Parliament has allowed this.

Anyone who is interested in the constitutional significance of the actions the Govt have taken should watch Sumptions October lecture to the Cambridge Law Society:

https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/Cambri...

A transcript is also available:

https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/privatelaw/Freshfi...

Lord Sumption said:
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the British state has exercised coercive powers over its citizens on a scale never previously attempted. It has taken effective legal control, enforced by the police, over the personal lives of the entire population: where they could go, whom they could meet, what they could do even within their own homes. For three months it placed everybody under a form of house arrest, qualified only by their right to do a limited number of things approved by ministers. All of this has been authorised by ministerial decree with minimal Parliamentary involvement. It has been the most significant interference with personal freedom in the history of our country. We have never sought to do such a thing before, even in wartime and even when faced with health crises far more serious than this one.
Since he wrote that, we have allowed them to do it all over again, without so much as a squeak of resistance.
The lesson of the last year is that the "rights" we thought we had were never any such thing; they were merely privileges which can be withdrawn at any time the government wants to do so. In the final analysis "the law" is not going to protect you or your rights, any more than waving around a paper copy of the statute against murder will stop a gunman shooting you.

Thin White Duke

1,876 posts

124 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Alucidnation said:
Thin White Duke said:
Elysium said:
Since he wrote that, we have allowed them to do it all over again, without so much as a squeak of resistance.
Isn't that down to the vaccine rollout?

That alone seemed to quell most resistance, certainly the resistance that was building in November.
Christ, you keep blabbing on about 'resistance' and 'tides turning' when nothing of the sort has happened.

Things are now starting to look better, with a fantastic budget, monumental success with the vaccine roll out with a decent road map out of this st, so get over it ffs.
I'll believe it when it happens.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat

11,676 posts

59 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Misanthrope said:
The lesson of the last year is that the "rights" we thought we had were never any such thing; they were merely privileges which can be withdrawn at any time the government wants to do so. In the final analysis "the law" is not going to protect you or your rights, any more than waving around a paper copy of the statute against murder will stop a gunman shooting you.
Someone's been watching George Carlin!
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED