|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 1, 2020 18:03:15 GMT
Tuberculosis claimed 1.5 million lives in 2018 according to WHO statistics which is also an airborne disease if I'm not mistaken. Just thought that was interesting as I don't recall any "lockdown" for that particular "pandemic" Seeing people walking about yesterday with masks on in the open air in 30 degrees heat was eye opening. Kids too. Just observations and anecdotes..... There's a vaccine for it.
|
|
|
Post by hoffgreen on Aug 1, 2020 18:08:51 GMT
Tuberculosis claimed 1.5 million lives in 2018 according to WHO statistics which is also an airborne disease if I'm not mistaken. Just thought that was interesting as I don't recall any "lockdown" for that particular "pandemic" Seeing people walking about yesterday with masks on in the open air in 30 degrees heat was eye opening. Kids too. Just observations and anecdotes..... There's a vaccine for it. It's working then obviously. Only 1.5 million dead. Great 👍
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Aug 1, 2020 18:10:28 GMT
What exactly are you saying? Now that deaths are low we should remove all restrictions because the problem has pretty much gone away? Well while daily hospital deaths continue to average a dozen a day and hospital admissions continue to fall what excuse does the Government have to impose, or threaten to impose, further lockdowns on major cities and more draconian measures? its becoming political and may be even racist !!
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 1, 2020 18:11:45 GMT
There's a vaccine for it. It's working then obviously. Only 1.5 million dead. Great 👍 Probably in poor countries.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 1, 2020 18:35:21 GMT
It's working then obviously. Only 1.5 million dead. Great 👍 Probably in poor countries. Correct - it's a disease of the poor. Only 4000 cases in the UK in 2019. Which is why it doesn't get much attention in developed countries.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Aug 1, 2020 18:40:22 GMT
Probably in poor countries. Correct - it's a disease of the poor. Only 4000 cases in the UK in 2019. Which is why it doesn't get much attention in developed countries. And if it wasn't for the anti-vaxers that number would be even lower.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 1, 2020 19:04:53 GMT
I wouldn't dare to claim to be an epidemiologist and I'm sure the actual modelling is far more sophisticated than both death rates and R rates but what I do know is that once the R rate goes above 1 you're screwed because then infection is exponential and effectively out of control. What I'm saying is that to control the epidemic you cannot rely on deaths rates - you have to look at infection rates. As to your second point - you are wrong. When restrictions were eased the infection rate would have continued to drop because that was the trend at the time. The current increase in infections has kicked in a good few weeks after the restrictions were lifted because it took time for the easing to stimulate the spread and the increase in death rates won't happen for a few days/weeks because of the delay between infection and death. If the government rely on death rates its too late - it's kicked off again. Thinking that the epidemic has gone away is just wishful thinking - everyone with any scientific credibility studying this epidemic knows that if left to it's own devices it will kick off again - there isn't a vaccine and we haven't acquired herd immunity. So should I consult the intelligentsia on a footballing website or the scientific community on this one? Between 1st April and 1st July, 7,426,285 tests were processed. In the last month alone nearly 4.5 million tests have been processed. Do you not think an increase in cases has anything to do with a massive increase in testing? My GP said to me once when a test came back saying further investigation was needed "that's the trouble with testing, you find things!" Don't anyone panic, I'm fine by the way!
|
|
|
Post by Soro's Sorrows on Aug 1, 2020 19:06:05 GMT
Well while daily hospital deaths continue to average a dozen a day and hospital admissions continue to fall what excuse does the Government have to impose, or threaten to impose, further lockdowns on major cities and more draconian measures? its becoming political and may be even racist !! Behave!
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Aug 1, 2020 19:10:12 GMT
Well while daily hospital deaths continue to average a dozen a day and hospital admissions continue to fall what excuse does the Government have to impose, or threaten to impose, further lockdowns on major cities and more draconian measures? its becoming political and may be even racist !! No it isn't, and I am staunch anti Tory but the worst you can accuse them of is incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 1, 2020 19:47:47 GMT
One of the biggest problems is America, instead of leading the way with a plan they have gone full herd immunity strategy making it impossible for it's allies to get through this in a organised way. America are too powerful for the whole of Europe to stop trading with them for a long period without angering them. Even if we cleared the virus in Europe now it would still keep returning because of America. There should have been an immediate lockdown by all countries to drive the virus down to zero rather than letting it go wild and it should have been America leading the way. It would have saved lives and jobs and we would all be pretty much clear of the virus now. Our country is in the position now where it needs to introduce a UBI or this country will go to the dogs quickly when Furlough ends. How have America gone full herd immunity when virtually every state is mandated to wear masks? Sweden haven't gone down that route and they are more or less back to normal. Arizona mandated masks and their cases soared. 60% of New York's cases were contracted by people who stayed at home. Explain that. Governments think they can control this virus. They are deluded. The only country who has accepted that they can't are on their way back to a normal life People need to wake up. New Zealand are almost pretty much back to normal and they have gone down a very different route than Sweden. One with far fewer deaths. I think we'll probably agree on one point - and that's that we can't carry one as we are. A zombie existence bumbling along and reacting daily to infection stats. My view is that we should go down the zero Covid route - yours the 'herd immunity' route. It's possible that both might work or that neither would - but the problem with 'herd immunity' is that you've got to be willing to sign off on a death toll and a roll call of potentially long term sick that would be 'acceptable' to keep the economy going - which might still go tits up anyway. What 'acceptable' toll might that be? 100k? 250k? Half a million? I'd hope that it will dawn on those with their hands on the levers of power that we can't continue dithering but are at fork in the road. I know which way I would want us to go.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 1, 2020 20:03:34 GMT
What exactly are you saying? Now that deaths are low we should remove all restrictions because the problem has pretty much gone away? Well while daily hospital deaths continue to average a dozen a day and hospital admissions continue to fall what excuse does the Government have to impose, or threaten to impose, further lockdowns on major cities and more draconian measures? This is a time when you can say parliment along side government because they all support it bar a few nuances
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 1, 2020 20:09:24 GMT
What exactly are you saying? Now that deaths are low we should remove all restrictions because the problem has pretty much gone away? Well while daily hospital deaths continue to average a dozen a day and hospital admissions continue to fall what excuse does the Government have to impose, or threaten to impose, further lockdowns on major cities and more draconian measures? What's the significance of them being 'hospital' deaths as opposed to dying anywhere else? Are you deader if you die in hospital?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 1, 2020 21:11:48 GMT
Well while daily hospital deaths continue to average a dozen a day and hospital admissions continue to fall what excuse does the Government have to impose, or threaten to impose, further lockdowns on major cities and more draconian measures? What's the significance of them being 'hospital' deaths as opposed to dying anywhere else? Are you deader if you die in hospital? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to my satisfaction where the non-hospital deaths are occurring. Are folks just sparking out at Sainsburys, turning up their toes in Tesco? We should be told!
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 1, 2020 21:25:53 GMT
What's the significance of them being 'hospital' deaths as opposed to dying anywhere else? Are you deader if you die in hospital? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to my satisfaction where the non-hospital deaths are occurring. Are folks just sparking out at Sainsburys, turning up their toes in Tesco? We should be told! Less than half of all deaths occur in hospital. Should Covid be any different (Genuine question)?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 1, 2020 21:44:16 GMT
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to my satisfaction where the non-hospital deaths are occurring. Are folks just sparking out at Sainsburys, turning up their toes in Tesco? We should be told! Less than half of all deaths occur in hospital. Should Covid be any different (Genuine question)? It's a very good question. I suppose the case that covid may be different goes something like this. If someone were dying from a cancer or dementia and a stage was reached where only palliative care were possible many people would like to return home to die or if that were not possible the hospital would not want them occupying a bed and they would be moved to a hospice. But with covid, first of all it is highly contagious so few families or institutions would take them on. And second of all I thought the typical covid non-recovery route, was hospital => intensive care => ventilator => induced coma => die. No real chance to get out and die in peace. The above may be complete nonsense though!
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 1, 2020 21:50:19 GMT
I have a further question. 3 times today I have heard a different esteemed academic tell us the pubs and restaurants may have to close for the schools to open.
The implication being it's the pub or the school, pick an institution, you can't have both? And of course then there is only one answer.
If the pubs have to close again since the public only has the stomach for so many deaths then perhaps that is simply how it is.
But I am not making the link with schools?
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 1, 2020 21:52:20 GMT
What's the significance of them being 'hospital' deaths as opposed to dying anywhere else? Are you deader if you die in hospital? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to my satisfaction where the non-hospital deaths are occurring. Are folks just sparking out at Sainsburys, turning up their toes in Tesco? We should be told! It's known to cause sticky blood with an increased chance of clotting which can trigger heart attacks and strokes. So maybe that is why people are dying from it outside hospital. I'm not a doctor but that would make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 1, 2020 21:56:24 GMT
I have a further question. 3 times today I have heard a different esteemed academic tell us the pubs and restaurants may have to close for the schools to open. The implication being it's the pub or the school, pick an institution, you can't have both? And of course then there is only one answer. If the pubs have to close again since the public only has the stomach for so many deaths then perhaps that is simply how it is. But I am not making the link with schools? If everything is open then the R rate will likely increase to levels perhaps not manageable. It's probably temporary until they can open everything without the risk of the R rate exceeding 1.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 1, 2020 22:10:36 GMT
I have a further question. 3 times today I have heard a different esteemed academic tell us the pubs and restaurants may have to close for the schools to open. The implication being it's the pub or the school, pick an institution, you can't have both? And of course then there is only one answer. If the pubs have to close again since the public only has the stomach for so many deaths then perhaps that is simply how it is. But I am not making the link with schools? It's an utter load of bollocks, the lot of it. I was drinking in a small pub this afternoon with the lad who runs the bookies next door. There we are, completely maskless, having a right old chinwag barely a metre apart. Half an hour later when his dinnertime's up, the next time I speak to him in the bookies, I have to wear a mask to even talk to him even though he's behind a giant Perspex screen where there were none in the pub! He hasn't wore a mask throughout. Utter fucking farce, utter fucking fiasco.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 2, 2020 5:34:49 GMT
I have a further question. 3 times today I have heard a different esteemed academic tell us the pubs and restaurants may have to close for the schools to open. The implication being it's the pub or the school, pick an institution, you can't have both? And of course then there is only one answer. If the pubs have to close again since the public only has the stomach for so many deaths then perhaps that is simply how it is. But I am not making the link with schools? It's an utter load of bollocks, the lot of it. I was drinking in a small pub this afternoon with the lad who runs the bookies next door. There we are, completely maskless, having a right old chinwag barely a metre apart. Half an hour later when his dinnertime's up, the next time I speak to him in the bookies, I have to wear a mask to even talk to him even though he's behind a giant Perspex screen where there were none in the pub! He hasn't wore a mask throughout. Utter fucking farce, utter fucking fiasco. It's like gambling or playing Russian roulette. Chingwag in the pub with no mask is like loading 4 chambers and putting the barrel to your head. Putting a mask on and a screen is more like loading one and letting a blind bird have a pop through a fence from next door's garden. Every bit of masks and distancing makes it less likely you spread the disease. Every chinwag in the pub makes it more likely. That's just how it is, so the government and people have to work out how much disease spread is ok.
|
|
|
Post by dexta on Aug 2, 2020 5:56:04 GMT
I have a further question. 3 times today I have heard a different esteemed academic tell us the pubs and restaurants may have to close for the schools to open. The implication being it's the pub or the school, pick an institution, you can't have both? And of course then there is only one answer. If the pubs have to close again since the public only has the stomach for so many deaths then perhaps that is simply how it is. But I am not making the link with schools? It's an utter load of bollocks, the lot of it. I was drinking in a small pub this afternoon with the lad who runs the bookies next door. There we are, completely maskless, having a right old chinwag barely a metre apart. Half an hour later when his dinnertime's up, the next time I speak to him in the bookies, I have to wear a mask to even talk to him even though he's behind a giant Perspex screen where there were none in the pub! He hasn't wore a mask throughout. Utter fucking farce, utter fucking fiasco. what pub shiek
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 2, 2020 7:59:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 2, 2020 8:36:16 GMT
This relates exactly to a question I asked on here the other day ... that being, is there a possibility that the reason we're seeing cases of infection increasing, whilst hospital admissions and deaths continue to decrease, due to the fact, that nowadays, it is predominantly younger, fitter people catching the disease because elderly and vulnerable people are effectively 'keeping out of the way' of the virus by staying at home more and unlike in the beginning, we've now got a grip on care homes. If elderly, vulnerable and care home residents all decided to put themselves in a position where they were more likely to catch the virus (like going to the pub), would we then see the death figures start to increase again? The key question being, has the virus naturally started to burn itself out, as many people are suggesting, or rather, does it have the potential to be just as deadly as it's ever been but we as a society, have worked out how to make sure, that those who are most at danger from it, don't actually catch it in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 2, 2020 8:37:43 GMT
It's an utter load of bollocks, the lot of it. I was drinking in a small pub this afternoon with the lad who runs the bookies next door. There we are, completely maskless, having a right old chinwag barely a metre apart. Half an hour later when his dinnertime's up, the next time I speak to him in the bookies, I have to wear a mask to even talk to him even though he's behind a giant Perspex screen where there were none in the pub! He hasn't wore a mask throughout. Utter fucking farce, utter fucking fiasco. It is all a bit mad. I love the fact though that you live somewhere where the bookie sits in the pub drinking until someone comes in and says they want to place a bet! 😁 "Hey, Mr Bun, can I buy a loaf of bread?" "Hang on son I'll just find my keys. Follow me!" 🙂 There used to be a bookie in the Swan in Stoke every Saturday years ago, my uncle got a good tip when we were in once and the poor bugger got cleaned out
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 2, 2020 8:38:52 GMT
It's an utter load of bollocks, the lot of it. I was drinking in a small pub this afternoon with the lad who runs the bookies next door. There we are, completely maskless, having a right old chinwag barely a metre apart. Half an hour later when his dinnertime's up, the next time I speak to him in the bookies, I have to wear a mask to even talk to him even though he's behind a giant Perspex screen where there were none in the pub! He hasn't wore a mask throughout. Utter fucking farce, utter fucking fiasco. It's like gambling or playing Russian roulette. Chingwag in the pub with no mask is like loading 4 chambers and putting the barrel to your head. Putting a mask on and a screen is more like loading one and letting a blind bird have a pop through a fence from next door's garden. Every bit of masks and distancing makes it less likely you spread the disease. Every chinwag in the pub makes it more likely. That's just how it is, so the government and people have to work out how much disease spread is ok. Yes, that's the question, more lock down equals less spread, less lock down equals more spread, an increase in infection rates can't be a surprise. So how much spread is okay? And here we divide. One group says the virus is over-rated so let's go out and buy stuff again and the other says we must protect the vulnerable and punish every possible infraction. And that is where we now are.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 2, 2020 8:45:15 GMT
This relates exactly to a question I asked on here the other day ... that being, is there a possibility that the reason we're seeing cases of infection increasing, whilst hospital admissions and deaths continue to decrease, due to the fact, that nowadays, it is predominantly younger, fitter people catching the disease because elderly and vulnerable people are effectively 'keeping out of the way' of the virus by staying at home more and unlike in the beginning, we've now got a grip on care homes. If elderly, vulnerable and care home residents all decided to put themselves in a position where they were more likely to catch the virus (like going to the pub), would we then see the death figures start to increase again? The key question being, has the virus naturally started to burn itself out, as many people are suggesting, or rather, does it have the potential to be just as deadly as it's ever been but we as a society, have worked out how to make sure, that those who are most at danger from it, don't actually catch it in the first place? I suspect your opening supposition is correct. Back in March and April you only got a test if you were either a front line NHS worker (if you were lucky) or a patient at deaths door. Now we might sweep in to a community and random test everyone regardless of whether they exhibit any symptoms. We really need more granularity behind this testing. I am certain medical staff and analysts have this but it is not widely shared since it won't be widely understood and the results may give rise to complacency.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 2, 2020 8:53:12 GMT
How have America gone full herd immunity when virtually every state is mandated to wear masks? Sweden haven't gone down that route and they are more or less back to normal. Arizona mandated masks and their cases soared. 60% of New York's cases were contracted by people who stayed at home. Explain that. Governments think they can control this virus. They are deluded. The only country who has accepted that they can't are on their way back to a normal life People need to wake up. New Zealand are almost pretty much back to normal and they have gone down a very different route than Sweden. One with far fewer deaths. I think we'll probably agree on one point - and that's that we can't carry one as we are. A zombie existence bumbling along and reacting daily to infection stats. My view is that we should go down the zero Covid route - yours the 'herd immunity' route. It's possible that both might work or that neither would - but the problem with 'herd immunity' is that you've got to be willing to sign off on a death toll and a roll call of potentially long term sick that would be 'acceptable' to keep the economy going - which might still go tits up anyway. What 'acceptable' toll might that be? 100k? 250k? Half a million? I'd hope that it will dawn on those with their hands on the levers of power that we can't continue dithering but are at fork in the road. I know which way I would want us to go. “We need to be in a position where we can have confidence that children can get back to school in September and businesses can reopen with confidence. If we hadn’t lifted lockdown in June we could have been looking at zero Covid in September. If we restricted those high-risk places, then by October and November when the pressures start building on the NHS, then hopefully we can get through the winter.” www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-england-pubs-gyms-shops-close-boris-johnson-coronavirus-lockdown-a9649361.html
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Aug 2, 2020 9:02:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 2, 2020 9:10:09 GMT
This relates exactly to a question I asked on here the other day ... that being, is there a possibility that the reason we're seeing cases of infection increasing, whilst hospital admissions and deaths continue to decrease, due to the fact, that nowadays, it is predominantly younger, fitter people catching the disease because elderly and vulnerable people are effectively 'keeping out of the way' of the virus by staying at home more and unlike in the beginning, we've now got a grip on care homes. If elderly, vulnerable and care home residents all decided to put themselves in a position where they were more likely to catch the virus (like going to the pub), would we then see the death figures start to increase again? The key question being, has the virus naturally started to burn itself out, as many people are suggesting, or rather, does it have the potential to be just as deadly as it's ever been but we as a society, have worked out how to make sure, that those who are most at danger from it, don't actually catch it in the first place? So let me get this right. The people who can't be arsed to social distance etc and are contributing most to the spread are going to be allowed to carry on spreading it and keepimg it out there whilst the ones who have done most to contain it are going to be told to carry on staying at home to stop them catching it for as long as its out there. Which if those who continue to spread it carry on will be a fuck of a long time. Genius.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Aug 2, 2020 9:15:13 GMT
I have to say I’m pleased to see these new approaches by the government, occasional problems with the implementation but the change in strategy it good.
As we know the science on masks is split so this is obviously a cautious one. It would appear we put the breaks on before other countries when you look at the rates of infection elsewhere which is good. I think they were right to block travel to Spain, another cautious move.
I’m still worried about test and trace and the communication is more of a mess without the briefings.
|
|