Coronavirus

[JimbO]

Just wandering who's going to fund the NHS when all these hospitality closures raise unemployment to the 12-15% that's being predicted.

And tax revenue decreases massively along with all the money which needs to be paid back because of Rishi's handout's.

eventually it's gotta stop cos their won't be much of a society to go back to.

[Mick McQuaid]

So now we have near 4000 scientists and doctors suggesting we need to develop herd immunity within the vast majority who suffer few if any lasting symptoms of Covid whilst protecting the vulnerable. The reasons being for the majority there is little real danger, however, the impact of lockdown could be an additional 74,000 deaths, a destroyed economy and a mental health crisis.

Other scientists completely disagree with this approach.

So after 6 months “experts” remain divided over the best way to move forward. Fantastic.

Gosh 4000 sounds like a big number.... (quick google) Oh, in the UK alone there are 194,000 people who would meet that definition of 'scientist. Phew, going for herd immunity remains a fringe view.

The decisions around how to manage the virus and any trade offs are purely political. That letter is 4000 people who happen to be scientists stating a political view.

I know our dear leader tries to take credit wherever he can and shift blame to those pesky scientists for all that's gone wrong but it's a complete misunderstanding of what the role of the 'experts' is if you think they should be deciding policy.

[faldO]

Gosh 4000 sounds like a big number.... (quick google) Oh, in the UK alone there are 194,000 people who would meet that definition of 'scientist. Phew, going for herd immunity remains a fringe view.

Herd immunity is the only end game, unless you think the virus might just die out, which is a remote possibility. It's how you get there that matters, it doesn't just mean "let everyone catch the virus".

And perhaps rather 4000 scientists who are prepared to at least look at alternatives and put forward some ideas for consideration, than the two who are running the show at the moment and are now just going to double down on what they have said before, regardless.

[Long slender neck]

Trump said, if it was up to scientists they'd lockdown forever. One of the things he was right about

[Currywurst and Chips]

Thousands of scientists and health experts write letter saying the old and vulnerable should be locked down and the rest of society should be left to get on with their lives as normal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

[Long slender neck]

If the hospital's can handle it then I don't see why we can't do this.

Anyone know what the hospitalisation rates are like at the moment?

[Long slender neck]

Uncle knows

[Dohnut]

So now we have near 4000 scientists and doctors suggesting we need to develop herd immunity within the vast majority who suffer few if any lasting symptoms of Covid whilst protecting the vulnerable. The reasons being for the majority there is little real danger, however, the impact of lockdown could be an additional 74,000 deaths, a destroyed economy and a mental health crisis.

Other scientists completely disagree with this approach.

So after 6 months “experts” remain divided over the best way to move forward. Fantastic.

Gosh 4000 sounds like a big number.... (quick google) Oh, in the UK alone there are 194,000 people who would meet that definition of 'scientist. Phew, going for herd immunity remains a fringe view.

The decisions around how to manage the virus and any trade offs are purely political. That letter is 4000 people who happen to be scientists stating a political view.

I know our dear leader tries to take credit wherever he can and shift blame to those pesky scientists for all that's gone wrong but it's a complete misunderstanding of what the role of the 'experts' is if you think they should be deciding policy.

Yet again you think I’m making some political point and am trying to shift blame etc. I humbly suggest you read the letter they wrote and make up your own mind. Of course politicians make decisions but even the stupid ones will look at the science before deciding what to do. The google comment is absurd. I did point that that other scientists disagree. Balance.

Out of interest the key people in the report are expert in their field and come from Harvard, Oxford and Stamford Universities. The scientist who disagrees was from Oxford.

So my point remains, Experts in the relevant field cannot reach agreement on the best way forward. This is not a political Point, just a realisation of how difficult it is for all countries.

[Dohnut]

If the hospital's can handle it then I don't see why we can't do this.

Anyone know what the hospitalisation rates are like at the moment?

Last figures I saw recently was Intake numbers doubled. But that was a bit alarmist For impact as the original number was 200. So still low but growing. Total now around 3000.

[Dohnut]

Uncle knows

I understand the gist of what he is saying and it is a reasonable position. But his comment about data is a bit rich. I have little doubt whilst building his empire he has made decisions based on best available data. Something we all do, even when booking a hotel or holiday or buying a product and looking at reviews.

[Mick McQuaid]

Donut, I didn't say you were making a political point, I said the letter you quoted was making a political point. You were merely demonstrating your lack of understanding again.

Great Barrington is the HQ of the American Institute for Economic research.

"AIER envisions a world in which societies are organized according to the principles of pure freedom—in which the role of government is sharply confined to the provision of public goods and individuals can flourish within a truly free market and a free society. "

Scientists are of course free to make political points, and where they are basing their views on their area of expertise it's perhaps sensible to give a bit more weight to their views. However, in this case the much more obvious balance to consider is that the views espoused here are massively outweighed by the vast majority of scientists and particularly epidemiologists who can point out why it would be completely impossible even if it was desirable.

Just think about the logic for a few seconds, the higher the rates of infection in the general population the more likely there will be a crossover to the people we are supposed to be protecting, so the only way to achieve this would be complete segregation for anyone who is vulnerable. How do you do this - separate shops, transport, hospitals? Or lock them all away and have them care for each other? Even if you did that, and gave not a toss that you're piling all the problems you're trying to avoid onto an already disadvantaged group, it wouldn't work anyway unless the same approach was followed everywhere in the world or you sealed the borders completely, which would be a little stricter than the restrictions we currently face.

Just let it rip and sod the people who die is at least a more honest way of arguing for change, and is really what is being proposed here. The thing is, while it's all great in theory, when people are faced wirh seeing their partner, parent or grandparent gasping their last while the ventilator is switched off, suddenly that trip to cinema to watch the latest Bond film doesn't seem that important after all.

[Long slender neck]

You think the risk of Doris getting covaids will be significantly higher if she is locked up and receives some shopping once a week than if she is free to wander into town everyday?

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

Soon it's going to be safer to go on holiday than be here.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Uncle knows

Love it when you see the arses of c**ts like this start twitching.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

You think the risk of Doris getting covaids will be significantly higher if she is locked up and receives some shopping once a week than if she is free to wander into town everyday?

If the virus is more prevalent, then obviously yes.

[Long slender neck]

From one socially distanced visit per week? Nonsense.

The crusties wouldn't stand for it of course

[BoniO]

From one socially distanced visit per week? Nonsense.

The crusties wouldn't stand for it of course

I know you're just trying for a rise but the last sentence is bollox of course. What choice would the oldies have?

Interestingly, if reversed, i.e. if it was the young ones who were more affected, and the oldies were asked to curtail their going out/social lives (many do still have them you know) I'd wager there would be huge compliance from the older generation to minimise deaths in the younger generation.

[A Pedant]

Just think about the logic for a few seconds, the higher the rates of infection in the general population the more likely there will be a crossover to the people we are supposed to be protecting, so the only way to achieve this would be complete segregation for anyone who is vulnerable. How do you do this - separate shops, transport, hospitals? Or lock them all away and have them care for each other? Even if you did that, and gave not a toss that you're piling all the problems you're trying to avoid onto an already disadvantaged group, it wouldn't work anyway unless the same approach was followed everywhere in the world or you sealed the borders completely, which would be a little stricter than the restrictions we currently face.

This. Practically it's a non-starter, before you even get to the ethics.

[Long slender neck]

They'd ignore it and there's no chance of govt imposing something so strict anyway.

[Dunners]

It looks like hospital admissions in the north are going up now anyway, which also squashes the "let it rip" strategy.

These pandemics are proper sh*t, aren't they?

[Dunners]

Also, here's the ONS graph comparing Covid & Flu deaths.

[Long slender neck]

It looks like hospital admissions in the north are going up now anyway, which also squashes the "let it rip" strategy.

These pandemics are proper sh*t, aren't they?

Going up with which age groups?

[Dunners]

I've not bothered looking that deep, however it'll probably be people who are older or with comorbidities. But, regardless of that, the initial strategy, which most people would accept as reasonable, was to protect NHS capacity.

Notwithstanding the excellent points made by Mick McQuaid and A Pedant, it is understandable why some people will want to explore alternative strategies as options. Especially those who are concerned about what this will mean for their children. But once the NHS is threatened then I suspect quite a few of those people will accept things.

[Dohnut]

Donut, I didn't say you were making a political point, I said the letter you quoted was making a political point. You were merely demonstrating your lack of understanding again.

Great Barrington is the HQ of the American Institute for Economic research.

"AIER envisions a world in which societies are organized according to the principles of pure freedom—in which the role of government is sharply confined to the provision of public goods and individuals can flourish within a truly free market and a free society. "

Scientists are of course free to make political points, and where they are basing their views on their area of expertise it's perhaps sensible to give a bit more weight to their views. However, in this case the much more obvious balance to consider is that the views espoused here are massively outweighed by the vast majority of scientists and particularly epidemiologists who can point out why it would be completely impossible even if it was desirable.

Just think about the logic for a few seconds, the higher the rates of infection in the general population the more likely there will be a crossover to the people we are supposed to be protecting, so the only way to achieve this would be complete segregation for anyone who is vulnerable. How do you do this - separate shops, transport, hospitals? Or lock them all away and have them care for each other? Even if you did that, and gave not a toss that you're piling all the problems you're trying to avoid onto an already disadvantaged group, it wouldn't work anyway unless the same approach was followed everywhere in the world or you sealed the borders completely, which would be a little stricter than the restrictions we currently face.

Just let it rip and sod the people who die is at least a more honest way of arguing for change, and is really what is being proposed here. The thing is, while it's all great in theory, when people are faced wirh seeing their partner, parent or grandparent gasping their last while the ventilator is switched off, suddenly that trip to cinema to watch the latest Bond film doesn't seem that important after all.

The ONLY point I was making is that in the Scientific community, the experts in this area, cannot agree on the best way forward.

Any lack of understanding Of my post my friend comes from you.

Like you I have been closely watching developments not just in the UK but worldwide, where information is available, and I have a reasonable grasp of the problems. As most of us have.

My family has been affected like so many others. For example, a son-in-law whose job meant he worked throughout lockdown, a daughter who teaches in a school, A sister in a nursing home where Covid happened and a Nurse died, A nephew whose business was saved by the furlough scheme, a son whose business was almost wiped out (hospitality industry) a grandson sent home from school, then tested whilst the whole family isolated, a nephew who paid privately for an operation due to NHS wait times, a sister who is afraid to leave home because of underlying health condition. As a family we are no different from many others, maybe even better off, none having died. So being polite, don’t have the fecking nerve to tell me I don’t understand.

My focus tends to be looking at solutions based on current available information. So I choose not to go on endlessly about the problems. Just what can be done to solve them.

[Dunners]

Jesus f*cking Christ.