CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 12)
Discussion
Elysium said:
Worth a listen. Spiegelhalter is very good.
Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
He's been consistently good throughout this hasn't he?Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
Diminishing returns absolutely applies. And to counter my position, not only from an age/risk pov but also because a decision to allow people to go clubbing isn't exactly the unleashing of a tidal wave. It's obviously nuanced.
Would you lockdown now from a standing start? No of course not. Extend it by a couple of weeks to get the over 40/45's double jabbed having been through what we have and given where we are? I can see the logic in that if I were in charge that's all.
As you/they say, at 40 and below it's inconsequential.
Harrison Bergeron said:
Rollin said:
Doesn't say that though does it. Here's the wording. You must be too scared to leave the house.
'In the highly unlikely event that a swab does contain a residual amount above the allowable limit, the risk to the user is still considered to be very low.'
None of the reasonable sceptics ever call out the fruit loops.
Very low- sounds a lot like the rona and it’s impact on the under 40s.'In the highly unlikely event that a swab does contain a residual amount above the allowable limit, the risk to the user is still considered to be very low.'
None of the reasonable sceptics ever call out the fruit loops.
Just why are we locking down again to protect them….
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to infect more than one person...
The swab doesnt mutate to something else...
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to... yup mutate into something else,
ben5575 said:
Elysium said:
Worth a listen. Spiegelhalter is very good.
Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
He's been consistently good throughout this hasn't he?Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
Diminishing returns absolutely applies. And to counter my position, not only from an age/risk pov but also because a decision to allow people to go clubbing isn't exactly the unleashing of a tidal wave. It's obviously nuanced.
Would you lockdown now from a standing start? No of course not. Extend it by a couple of weeks to get the over 40/45's double jabbed having been through what we have and given where we are? I can see the logic in that if I were in charge that's all.
As you/they say, at 40 and below it's inconsequential.
If you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
ben5575 said:
Elysium said:
Worth a listen. Spiegelhalter is very good.
Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
He's been consistently good throughout this hasn't he?Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
Diminishing returns absolutely applies. And to counter my position, not only from an age/risk pov but also because a decision to allow people to go clubbing isn't exactly the unleashing of a tidal wave. It's obviously nuanced.
Would you lockdown now from a standing start? No of course not. Extend it by a couple of weeks to get the over 40/45's double jabbed having been through what we have and given where we are? I can see the logic in that if I were in charge that's all.
As you/they say, at 40 and below it's inconsequential.
Rollin said:
Read the FOI...and probably dismiss that too. You display classic conspiracy theorist traits too.
I’m not dismissing anything, merely questioning the narrative. It may be perfectly safe to ram these things up your nose every week, then again....Thanks for the conspiracy theorist label, despite not knowing a thing about me. I’ll throw you one back. You sound like a weak minded individual who can’t think for themselves, and relishes being controlled. Someone who needs constant direction and supervision in life that is a concern when left to the own devices.
We can all throw assumptions around, mine is probably just as close to reality as yours.
ben5575 said:
Elysium said:
Worth a listen. Spiegelhalter is very good.
Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
He's been consistently good throughout this hasn't he?Notable that he was clear that the risk of COVID death was lower than other things for the < 40s.
I agree that there is a race between vaccines and the virus, but we are in a better place than we expected in terms of the exit wave and the law of diminishing returns applies. You can always do a bit better if you delay, but each time we delayed removal of controls in autumn and again now nature gave us a big slap in the face in the form of new variants that largely defeat our plans.
At some point we need to rip the plaster off and get this exit wave done. I see zero reasons why that should not be the 21st June. Delaying to optimise the COVID outcomes without considering the wider impacts of that delay and it’s lawfulness is, in my opinion, foolish and reckless.
Diminishing returns absolutely applies. And to counter my position, not only from an age/risk pov but also because a decision to allow people to go clubbing isn't exactly the unleashing of a tidal wave. It's obviously nuanced.
Would you lockdown now from a standing start? No of course not. Extend it by a couple of weeks to get the over 40/45's double jabbed having been through what we have and given where we are? I can see the logic in that if I were in charge that's all.
As you/they say, at 40 and below it's inconsequential.
And in any event - about 5% of current cases are still going into hospital. So cases do matter, at least in terms of predicting the hospital demand.
The other problem is what might happen to R(t) in the 2-3 weeks after stage 4. If we started to get to 20-30,000 cases per day, we are going to be hearing all of the usual suspects again demanding another lockdown, not continuing with the easing.
And if we look to Wales, we can see they are 7 doses per 100 adults ahead of the rest of the UK (which is about 3 weeks of dosing). And we can see infections there are far more under control. Whilst there are lots of factors involved, I think the fact they are close to completing their 1st dose adult vaccine rollout is a very important reason.
ruggedscotty said:
yup but the swabs only affect the person being swabbed dont they...
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to infect more than one person...
The swab doesnt mutate to something else...
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to... yup mutate into something else,
But the vulnerable have been vaccinated so if it mutates(which usually results in a more spreadable less deadly version) who is going to die?Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to infect more than one person...
The swab doesnt mutate to something else...
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to... yup mutate into something else,
unless you don't believe in the vaccine.
Harrison Bergeron said:
ruggedscotty said:
yup but the swabs only affect the person being swabbed dont they...
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to infect more than one person...
The swab doesnt mutate to something else...
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to... yup mutate into something else,
But the vulnerable have been vaccinated so if it mutates(which usually results in a more spreadable less deadly version) who is going to die?Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to infect more than one person...
The swab doesnt mutate to something else...
Where as the 'corona' actually has the capacity to... yup mutate into something else,
unless you don't believe in the vaccine.
mutations can be either more or less deadly,
mutations can be either more or less spreadable.
risk matrix....
Thus if they are working to try and protect... it follows more transmittiable more deadly mutatiom there is still a significant risk there to be managed.
cases of mutations to more deadly are out there, its just that as it gets more deadly it tends to kill the host and limit the spread. However if its more spreadable, and more dealy with an asympotmatic phase then were fooked...
If that were to hit...
Elysium said:
It seems to me that you might be forgetting how unprecedented and undemocratic these restrictions are. We’ve been living with them for 15 months and it’s become normalised, but I think we need to step back and look at them through the lens of 2019 ‘normal’.
If you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
BingoIf you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
Rollin said:
Scolmore said:
Rollin said:
Government FOI. Obviously made up too.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom...
You lot are laughable.
“Risk very low”https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom...
You lot are laughable.
Or you could completely avoid the risk by not taking a pointless test in the first place.
'In the highly unlikely event that a swab does contain a residual amount above the allowable limit, the risk to the user is still considered to be very low.'
None of the reasonable sceptics ever call out the fruit loops.
ts that just take on board the crap they are fed by the government and media that are scared to leave the house. I never said it was anything other than a low risk. What I said was the schools asking kids to shove it up their noses 3 times a week is stupid.
It may be very low risk, but that is the point, covid for under 19's is also pretty much no risk, yet we are discussing vaccinating children, which we 'know' will kill some of them.
That is the point. It is screwy.
Chris Stott said:
This thread gets ruined by nutters suggesting things like ‘the government is trying to kill people with nasal swabs’... Much like a few, vocal, 5G nutters ruin the credibility of the protest marches.
No one said that at all. Rollin said:
You display classic conspiracy theorist traits too.
What are those traits? Not just turning on the BBC at 5pm and doing as you're told? Hahaha
Listen to as many people as possible, and certainly listen to the people who invented the things who are telling you to hold on a moment."
Guy who invented mRNA gene therapy and the guy who invented the PCR tests are the two that I am listening to when it comes to taking an mRNA gene therapy and using a PCR test to work out that the planet even needs an mRNA therapy.
You are perfect for them, absolutely perfect. Hold out your arm, smile and get your sticker.
basherX said:
Elysium said:
It seems to me that you might be forgetting how unprecedented and undemocratic these restrictions are. We’ve been living with them for 15 months and it’s become normalised, but I think we need to step back and look at them through the lens of 2019 ‘normal’.
If you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
BingoIf you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
Was at a village BBQ last night, no distancing going on, no masks, all refreshingly normal. But at the same time almost complete unanimity that restrictions needed to be extended and complete unawareness of the differences between mRNA vaccines and traditional ones.
Really really bizarre complacency and double standards by people I generally regard as pretty balanced and informed.
ruggedscotty said:
cases of mutations to more deadly are out there, its just that as it gets more deadly it tends to kill the host and limit the spread.
What if you give everyone a vaccine that allows you to suppress the symptoms enough to let them carry on as pretty much normal while the virus mutates? It could mutate either way of course.
But this is exactly what so many of them were saying, you are best to vaccinate the vulnerable and let it do what it is going to do to those who are not vulnerable, that way, when people get it, they will feel ill, stay in bed and cut themselves off from everyone else and it will not have a host to jump to.
Like the idiot who takes half a packet of Day Nurse so he can come into the office, but in doing so puts 50% of the office out for the next two weeks.
basherX said:
Elysium said:
It seems to me that you might be forgetting how unprecedented and undemocratic these restrictions are. We’ve been living with them for 15 months and it’s become normalised, but I think we need to step back and look at them through the lens of 2019 ‘normal’.
If you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
BingoIf you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
As ever, only the risks of the virus can be seen by some, while everything else is collapsing around them. Target fixation.
ruggedscotty said:
I believe in the theory behind vaccines. I also see you mentioning more spreadable less deadly version ? can you be sure on that one ?
mutations can be either more or less deadly,
mutations can be either more or less spreadable.
risk matrix....
Thus if they are working to try and protect... it follows more transmittiable more deadly mutatiom there is still a significant risk there to be managed.
cases of mutations to more deadly are out there, its just that as it gets more deadly it tends to kill the host and limit the spread. However if its more spreadable, and more dealy with an asympotmatic phase then were fooked...
If that were to hit...
Out of interest, where do you think cv19 sits on that matrix?mutations can be either more or less deadly,
mutations can be either more or less spreadable.
risk matrix....
Thus if they are working to try and protect... it follows more transmittiable more deadly mutatiom there is still a significant risk there to be managed.
cases of mutations to more deadly are out there, its just that as it gets more deadly it tends to kill the host and limit the spread. However if its more spreadable, and more dealy with an asympotmatic phase then were fooked...
If that were to hit...
For the population as a whole, it's squarely at bottom left.
Pupp said:
Yep, completely agree.
Was at a village BBQ last night, no distancing going on, no masks, all refreshingly normal. But at the same time almost complete unanimity that restrictions needed to be extended and complete unawareness of the differences between mRNA vaccines and traditional ones.
Really really bizarre complacency and double standards by people I generally regard as pretty balanced and informed.
The strange thing is, I have guys I know who will spend 4 hours a night for months watching info on watches and cars etc. but send them a short video discussing the pros and cons of a new type of gene therapy from the guy who invented it and "I haven't got time/can't be bothered to watch that." Was at a village BBQ last night, no distancing going on, no masks, all refreshingly normal. But at the same time almost complete unanimity that restrictions needed to be extended and complete unawareness of the differences between mRNA vaccines and traditional ones.
Really really bizarre complacency and double standards by people I generally regard as pretty balanced and informed.
It's all about cases again in the wider social media bubble and much much hang wringing about a) unvaccinated people passing it to vaccinated people and the vaccine not working quite so well for them b) the young vulnerable person who isn't registered with a GP and therefore hasn't been offered a jab
Whilst the rest of the world is in a race to open up we are in a race to "what if.." land...fk me
Whilst the rest of the world is in a race to open up we are in a race to "what if.." land...f
k meCAH706 said:
One of the junior ministers as good as said the other day that they want to jab all adults twice to allow us to open up. Think he let that slip rather than intended to say it.
Sounds like a good idea if they can do it within a reasonable time frame, you won't get everyone vaccinated the anti vaxxers/freeman of the land types but there aren't that many to make a difference. Elysium said:
It seems to me that you might be forgetting how unprecedented and undemocratic these restrictions are. We’ve been living with them for 15 months and it’s become normalised, but I think we need to step back and look at them through the lens of 2019 ‘normal’.
If you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
Like you I've been around since Vol 1 advocating the GBD approach long before GBD was even a thing. I am not in anyway a supporter of HMG's actions nor the way that they have handled this.If you had been asked then if it was OK to keep nightclubs closed, limit personal interaction in private homes and require masks under point of law to slightly reduce pressure on the NHS at a busy period you would have said no.
These restrictions are only acceptable if we are in a genuine health emergency where it is justified and proportionate to trade off some human rights in order to protect life. Whichever way you look at this I don’t think it’s tenable to argue that the scale of these restrictions is still proportionate to the problem.
So on a practical level I see how you have reached the conclusion that a couple more weeks of this is ‘worth it’ to achieve a slightly better outcome. However, I think you are underestimating the costs we will be paying and forgetting that no one has the lawful power to do this if there is no emergency.
However we're not in March 19 or 20. I am looking through the lens of June 21, where, regrettably(!), we are where we are to use that horrible phrase, with a government that is balls deep into a mess of their own making, but with an effective vaccine. The picture has changed.
We were on track for 21st - the mood music was playing, ready to cast Boris as the Saviour. It is Delta that has thrown the curve ball. If it had appeared 3 weeks later, the requisite jabs would have been jabbed, we would have crossed the finish line, just as Eddie says above. This is why I don't buy into the taking over the world/new normal/it's never going to end b
ks, we really were that close. As it is we are still, sadly, in the race. Not being able to go clubbing, to a festival, to have a decent wedding, to have to wear feckin masks is absolutely an affront to our freedoms in a democratic society. 100% behind that. If we were blindly pissing in the wind like HMG was for the first 12 months, I'd absolutely agree that we should be open.
But we're not. Two/four weeks means getting 7m or 14m extra jabs, the double dosing of those over 40. That sounds like a reasonable and logical plan to me at a cost that sadly is worth paying.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff