Coronavirus

[no eyed deer]

NED
How do you keep 15 million people safe?

Are you saying if we dont lockdown 15 million will die?

[no eyed deer]

Ned, unless you can invent another way of restricting the spread there is no other way than lockdown until everyine that needs to be are immunised. Look at the countries that have contained the virus well.

Better isolating 15 million than locking down 80 million.

[SydneyRover]

Look at the chaos now hospitals at breaking point and health care workers dying, imagine the chaos if you let it rip it would be shut down without the lockdown with so many sick and dying. Didn't you read any of bst's repoort on Bergamo?

[albie]

This is interesting, something I touched on a few months back.


https://twitter.com/drdavidsamadi/status/1352189984867016705?s=19

Nudga,

Not getting your point here.
The reason we use excess deaths as the metric is to by-pass any inconsistencies in the covid specific data.

How you measure the overall position is much more important than individual assessments beneath that architecture.

[no eyed deer]

Look at the chaos now hospitals at breaking point and health care workers dying, imagine the chaos if you let it rip it would be shut down without the lockdown with so many sick and dying. Didn't you read any of bst's repoort on Bergamo?

No sorry -

I have answered all your questions

I've asked you one question and you have given me a politicians answer.

[drfchound]

Come on Sydney, NED has asked a fair question.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NED.

That wasn't the question.

HOW do you isolate 15 million people?

[SydneyRover]

The answer is fecking obvious but you won't like it, as long as it takes, long enough to suppress the virus for a manageable outcome which would likely daily numbers of new infections at less than 20. But with the worlds best test and trace system a total b*llocks it could take some time.

[scawsby steve]

If all the borders and airports in the world had been closed as soon as the virus left China, none of this would have happened.

Something as drastic might still have to happen yet, because this virus is going nowhere.

It just looks unbeatable.

[no eyed deer]

Sorry BST - misinterpreted it..

A lot easier than keeping 80 million  safe.

Now can you answer my question please.

[no eyed deer]

The answer is fecking obvious but you won't like it, as long as it takes, long enough to suppress the virus for a manageable outcome which would likely daily numbers of new infections at less than 20. But with the worlds best test and trace system a total b*llocks it could take some time.

Less than 20... come on please. Another that works for sage.

[drfchound]

The answer is fecking obvious but you won't like it, as long as it takes, long enough to suppress the virus for a manageable outcome which would likely daily numbers of new infections at less than 20. But with the worlds best test and trace system a total b*llocks it could take some time.

I was curious as to how long you would think was acceptable, that is all.

I wonder though why you say I wouldn’t like your answer.

[SydneyRover]

sorry hound it was an answer to Ned. Ned now that you have the answer are you going to accept it? An answer to bst's question of how you keep people safe would be worth having.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sorry BST - misinterpreted it..

A lot easier than keeping 80 million  safe.

Now can you answer my question please.

NED

You are mixing apples and oranges.

We are NOT isolating the whole population.

If we did what you want,let the virus rip through most of the population, you WOULD have to totally isolate the most vulnerable 15 million. There is no possible way of doing that.

[albie]

The roll out of the vax is a key part of the solution, but by itself, it is not enough.

IndieSage set out a proposal for creating an effective T+T system;
https://www.independentsage.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/New-FTTIS-System-final-06.50.pdf

This is essential, but the clueless UK decision makers do not understand the science or the maths of the current position.

They will continue to repeat their previous mistakes, the ones that have given us the record death rate....the conditions to resolve the problem are not yet in place in the UK.

[drfchound]

sorry hound it was an answer to Ned. Ned now that you have the answer are you going to accept it? An answer to bst's question of how you keep people safe would be worth having.

I would accept a longer lockdown because I don’t think we really have much of an alternative.
I don’t think anyone knows how long the virus will keep causing us big problems whether in government or opposition.

I’m not bothered about responding to BSTs stuff.

[no eyed deer]

Sydney-  not anti vaccine ( if you want it  have), not a covid conspirator, not a anti mask,  but do I think we should be careful giving up so much freedom. Laws are being passed without a challenge.

Hospitals are overwhelmed, but some departments are deserted.

Mental health will soon be  massive news. Suicides figures will increase.

Cancer, poverty and the lost generation- my children without work, while you get your nice pension with no financial difficulties.

[Nudga]

sorry hound it was an answer to Ned. Ned now that you have the answer are you going to accept it? An answer to bst's question of how you keep people safe would be worth having.

I would accept a longer lockdown because I don’t think we really have much of an alternative.
I don’t think anyone knows how long the virus will keep causing us big problems whether in government or opposition.

I’m not bothered about responding to BSTs stuff.

2025

[drfchound]

Sydney-  not anti vaccine ( if you want it  have), not a covid conspirator, not a anti mask,  but do I think we should be careful giving up so much freedom. Laws are being passed without a challenge.

Hospitals are overwhelmed, but some departments are deserted.

Mental health will soon be  massive news. Suicides figures will increase.

Cancer, poverty and the lost generation- my children without work, while you get your nice pension with no financial difficulties.

You are correct about mental health issues NED.
I was saying to the wife this week that we are becoming more and more isolated from our family and friends.
I am very much an outdoors type and like the company of other people.
Playing and watching sport plays a big part in my life and I am missing it so much.
We also don’t get to see much of the grandchildren.

[wilts rover]

A lot easier than keeping 80 million  safe.

Lockdowns dont keep anybody safe. They stop the health service from being overwhelmed.

As I have argued from page 1, getting the spread of a highly contagious respiratory virus under control will keep 80 million safe - as say Vietnam (pop 96 mill), South Korea (pop 50 mill), Japan (pop 126 mill) have done. We have had more covid related deaths this week than those three countries have had in total.

There were 20 000 people at a festival in New Zealand at the weekend

https://www.nme.com/news/music/20000-people-in-new-zealand-attend-biggest-concert-since-lockdown-2859251

UK population is 66 mill of which around 12 mill are children btw.

[SydneyRover]

Sydney-  not anti vaccine ( if you want it  have), not a covid conspirator, not a anti mask,  but do I think we should be careful giving up so much freedom. Laws are being passed without a challenge.

Hospitals are overwhelmed, but some departments are deserted.

Mental health will soon be  massive news. Suicides figures will increase.

Cancer, poverty and the lost generation- my children without work, while you get your nice pension with no financial difficulties.

No Ned I didn't suggest you were and I agree with all of that but the practical real world obstacles are incredible. Hospitals struggle to contain the virus how are we going to help manage sick people in their own homes without spreading the virus further at ever increasing rates of infection. We will end up with untrained relatives looking after each other without ppe and more dying.

[no eyed deer]

Sorry BST - misinterpreted it..

A lot easier than keeping 80 million  safe.

Now can you answer my question please.

NED

You are mixing apples and oranges.

We are NOT isolating the whole population.

If we did what you want,let the virus rip through most of the population, you WOULD have to totally isolate the most vulnerable 15 million. There is no possible way of doing that.

BST - other than going to work then yes ! I am under house arrest. As long as I go to work to keep your lights on and risking my life and my dad who I have to support...that's fine.

If you are so passionate about it we should alll stop home for 2 weeks and let the lights go out, water stop running and food run out, that would stop the disease in its tracks.

Why dont we do that- because it would cause more deaths.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sorry BST - misinterpreted it..

A lot easier than keeping 80 million  safe.

Now can you answer my question please.

NED

You are mixing apples and oranges.

We are NOT isolating the whole population.

If we did what you want,let the virus rip through most of the population, you WOULD have to totally isolate the most vulnerable 15 million. There is no possible way of doing that.

BST - other than going to work then yes ! I am under house arrest. As long as I go to work to keep your lights on and risking my life and my dad who I have to support...that's fine.

If you are so passionate about it we should alll stop home for 2 weeks and let the lights go out, water stop running and food run out, that would stop the disease in its tracks.

Why dont we do that- because it would cause more deaths.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why there is no sensible alternative to what we are doing.

Look at that graph I posted earlier. Cases quadrupled in December. Hospitalisations and deaths follow them a couple of weeks later. Without the lockdown, that wouldn't have stopped, despite what some misinformation "experts" have been claiming.

So you have three possible outcomes.

1) Total country lockdown with everything switched off and everyone confined to home for 3 weeks. Which would kill the virus, but also have millions starve.

2) Let the virus rip. Which would kill 300,000 in two months due to the virus alone, because you cannot shield the vulnerable in those circumstances. And it would kill far more because the NHS would cease to exist for that time.

3) Hold your nerve with what we are doing now.

There literally is no alternative. This lockdown will last until April/May,then it will start to ease. And it won't ever get this bad again. As long as we hold our nerve.

We muddle on. Another 40-60,000 die of the virus. Other people suffer of course, but we pick up the pieces when things start to ease.

It's an awful situation, but there is no better alternative.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NED
How do you keep 15 million people safe?

Are you saying if we dont lockdown 15 million will die?

No, of course I'm not. But maybe 10% of them get serious I'll and that's your NHS f**ked. And maybe 2-3% of them die, and that's a similar death toll to all the armed forces we lost in 6 years of WWII.

[no eyed deer]

Sorry BST - misinterpreted it..

A lot easier than keeping 80 million  safe.

Now can you answer my question please.

NED

You are mixing apples and oranges.

We are NOT isolating the whole population.

If we did what you want,let the virus rip through most of the population, you WOULD have to totally isolate the most vulnerable 15 million. There is no possible way of doing that.

BST - other than going to work then yes ! I am under house arrest. As long as I go to work to keep your lights on and risking my life and my dad who I have to support...that's fine.

If you are so passionate about it we should alll stop home for 2 weeks and let the lights go out, water stop running and food run out, that would stop the disease in its tracks.

Why dont we do that- because it would cause more deaths.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why there is no sensible alternative to what we are doing.

Look at that graph I posted earlier. Cases quadrupled in December. Hospitalisations and deaths follow them a couple of weeks later. Without the lockdown, that wouldn't have stopped, despite what some misinformation "experts" have been claiming.

So you have three possible outcomes.

1) Total country lockdown with everything switched off and everyone confined to home for 3 weeks. Which would kill the virus, but also have millions starve.

2) Let the virus rip. Which would kill 300,000 in two months due to the virus alone, because you cannot shield the vulnerable in those circumstances. And it would kill far more because the NHS would cease to exist for that time.

3) Hold your nerve with what we are doing now.

There literally is no alternative. This lockdown will last until April/May,then it will start to ease. And it won't ever get this bad again. As long as we hold our nerve.

We muddle on. Another 40-60,000 die of the virus. Other people suffer of course, but we pick up the pieces when things start to ease.

It's an awful situation, but there is no better alternative.

BST - 


1) Total country lockdown with everything switched off and everyone confined to home for 3 weeks. Which would kill the virus, but also have millions starve.

Millions are going without food, but we turn away from it because it doesn't effect us.

Could that be how some myself and others  persevere Covid ?

[BillyStubbsTears]

NED.

If millions are going without food, that is a national disgrace and is in the power of the Govt to fix. Unfortunately, to date, they have refused to commit to extending the increase in Universal Credit. And of course, they had to be shamed by Marcus Rashford into giving the poorest kids free school meals in holidays.

If some see mentioning that as political point scoring, I couldn't give two f**ks. My take is that not criticising those decisions is effectively the same as agreeing with them.

[no eyed deer]

NED.

If millions are going without food, that is a national disgrace and is in the power of the Govt to fix. Unfortunately, to date, they have refused to commit to extending the increase in Universal Credit. And of course, they had to be shamed by Marcus Rashford into giving the poorest kids free school meals in holidays.

If some see mentioning that as political point scoring, I couldn't give two f**ks. My take is that not criticising those decisions is effectively the same as agreeing with them.

Political points scoring ? its kids lives and well being. The press over time have done a good job making the population of this country associate this and lazy benefit cheats. In turn decides society.

It's the same kids who will be in houses with little heating, no access to the internet and falling behind in schooling. The circle goes on.

Destined to work in low paid low skilled job, so it there is another lock down our shelves will full be full.

The working man, never gets rich, as who would work then ?

PS - I'm not serious out a full lockdown. Just some see lockdown as protecting thier loved ones and not what's best for the nation.

There are no winners here...none.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NED.

Apologies. I absolutely wasn't suggesting you were politically point scoring.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Very informative research here, collating a huge amount of evidence in the Infection Fatality Rate for COVID and seasonal flu at different ages.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1330898992629157888

Anyone who still insists that COVID is no worse than normal flu...well, I give up.

If you click on the GitHub link, there's a table at the end of that page where they use the data to estimate the overall IFR for each country, based in the age demographics.

For the UK, the estimates range from 0.8% to 1.6%. For normal flu,the figure is 0.05%.

[Filo]

Vaccine supply to the North East and Yorkshire is being halved because London and the South East have been crap at rolling it out, North East and Yorkshire being penalised for being good at at. I wonder if that would have happened the other way around