Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:57 pm 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.

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:37 pm
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.

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:37 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:57 pm 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.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:06 pm 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?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 pm Uncle knows

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:13 pm Uncle knows

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:46 am 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?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:59 am From one socially distanced visit per week? Nonsense.

The crusties wouldn't stand for it of course

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:46 am 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.

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:35 pm 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?

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:46 am 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.