Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 Mar 20
15:35
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Sep 04
What is the point of the United Kingdom, Europe and America going into lockdown, collapsing their economies and financial markets, when other massive populations such as Russia, India, Brazil etc are doing next to nothing?
If the virus is so dangerous and contagious, won’t it just come back to our shores if every other nation doesn’t take similar preventative measures?
If the virus is so dangerous and contagious, won’t it just come back to our shores if every other nation doesn’t take similar preventative measures?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 53
|
By:
I agree Pokermonster
We should keep on as normal....I might be able to find some toilet rolls then |
|
By:
Quite possibly. The reaction here is bizarre. Here’s one professor who’s broken ranks...
In an analysis published Tuesday, Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis — co-director of the university’s Meta-Research Innovation Center and professor of medicine, biomedical data science, statistics, and epidemiology and population health — suggests that the response to the coronavirus pandemic may be “a fiasco in the making” because we are making seismic decisions based on “utterly unreliable” data. The data we do have, Ioannidis explains, indicates that we are likely severely overreacting. On Diamond Princess cruise ship’s quarantined passengers: While the fatality rate was 1.0%, he points out, the population was largely elderly, the most at-risk demographic. Projected out onto the age structure of the U.S. population, he calculates, the death rate is more like 0.125%, with a range of 0.025% to 0.625% based on the sample size: For those who argue that the high fatality rate among elderly people indicates that the death rate cannot be as low as 0.05%, the professor notes that “even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanford-professor-data-indicates-were-overreacting-to-coronavirus |
|
By:
The problem is any heath service would be overwhelemed
And then there would be NO services for other procedures Eventually the casualty rate would be MASSIVE  |
|
By:
maybe they will start doing something
|
|
By:
This forum keeps going to the same old subjects... It's not about trying to prevent it totally it's about managing it so it happens over a timescale that is minimum health damage with minimum disruption and doesn't swamp healthcare systems.
I.e. read this: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-flatten-the-curve.html I.e. put it simply if you can care for 10,000 people at once who might die and 500,000 might get into that state, it's better you spread it out so they can all be treated than a burst of 50,000 needing it at a given moment and 40,000 not being able to receive it. It's a perfectly rational approach and our government's approach but people don't seem to understand it :( It's like the power network throwing a fuse as 20,000,000 people put kettles on at the end of the world cup final. In china they are ordered to stagger it :P The people who keep banging on as if it all could've been prevented or "herd immunity" don't seem to understand this. Also delaying it might mean there is a viable vaccine down the line. But you'd be stupid to base your policy on that. |
|
By:
donald trump had a vaccine for two minutes yesterday
|
|
By:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/
Some very interesting statistics on this graph, not least the amount of mentions in the media  You may just want to compare the total amount of recorded deaths for various diseases and question why we havent called a lockdown for seasonal flu or perhaps pneumonia ? |
|
By:
WHY WOULD any sane person watch whats happening for whatever reason in lombardy and not in the other 80% of Italy,and not do anything you can to stop it ,its beyond me, what argument are you trying to win, I dont get it
|
|
By:
just checking please can you answer the following (and try not to engage in ad hominems just for once
 )the government's initial approach was based on a model that suggested a strategy of mitigation was best (slowing the spread so that herd immunity was achieved). when they put some actual numbers from italy and london into that model they were horrified to discover that if they continued there would be 250,000 deaths so they did an about turn. we are now supposedly trying to suppress in the hope of a vaccine, which may be 12-18 months away. (some of this is in the paper - https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf). i would also add that they only released their research recently and some academics doubt its veracity. bearing in mind the model was so wrong so quickly do you still trust it? i do not trust the government, they were going for herd immunity (either the cso or cmo expressly said so at a parliamentary committee) and they briefed the press on this until they later denied it. a couple of nights ago they briefed the press london would be in lock down (which was bound to lead to more panic buying) then yesterday they said london would not be locked down. yesterday bozo was claiming we could turn the tide in 12 weeks yet,the policy we are now following is for 12-18 months until a vaccine is found (as i am writing i see they are briefing about social distancing for 12 months). there are no easy answers but all in all, unless there is a cunning plan, it looks like a shamble in both the policy and the messaging. |
|
By:
jolly When you read the absolute DRIVEL posted on here and on twitter, newspaper comments etc, it's hard not to use general ad hominems, but I don't think I aimed any at you :P
Who says their strategy isn't still mitigation? I believe it still is. They've AFAIK had a series of steps they could implement and are implementing them at points they see fit and I've read independent experts agree with them. "we are now supposedly trying to suppress in the hope of a vaccine, which may be 12-18 months away." I've not read this at all. This doesn't seem to match what they are doing, which is more curve flattening to make health problems manageable. I trust their models in that they seem to know the rate that happens when you do nothing, and can reduce this rate by doing e.g. social isolation. This is *a* transmittable infection but it's not the first and not particularly novel, they can compare it to the many studies they'll have done before and stick the variables in. "They were going for herd immunity". They perhaps still are but realised the public and press now go batshit mental when they hear words that scare them. |
|
By:
One thing I've also realised is that sections of the hysterical media and twitter/facebook mobs I don't think can calmly handle things they don't want to hear being explained to them (it breaks their safe space and need appropriate trigger warnings).And they are on a cocaine like edge waiting to hysterically attack anything Boris says or does. Just look at this forum or .. anywyhere. I find it hard to believe the governments advisors and therefore the government didn't know the things the attack Boris crowd are now saying they didn't know. I'm not remotely an expert but the way epidemics and diseases spread seems fairly well understood.
It's not hard to imagine they DID but didn't want to cause a panic (err .. like THAT would happen, been in a supermarket lately or looked at a stock market?) and wanted to introduce measures and concepts at appropriate times. Drip feed us into reality. Given the way our media and social media are acting, if that is what happened (and I think that's quite plausible), they were quite shrewd. |
|
By:
The media love a bad story. Big dramatic and scary headlines are for click bait.
They’ll make it political if they can. CNN already using the virus as a weapon to get Biden into the White House. Herd immunity surely makes sense long term. But when they said most people needed to catch it, that didn’t go down too well as JC implies. As for Pokermonster’s question, air travel may not return to ‘normal’ for many years. This may be a blessing... |
|
By:
1st hospital in London goes down,handjobs hanncock military 3 month planning blows up in 48 hrs
|
|
By:
just checking i am afraid you are completely mistaken, our policy has changed dramatically, as i said in my post.
the paper they published that i posted before says we are on suppression, you need to read it, its not long. 12-18 months is specifically mentioned. you blame the media but i have given a couple of examples (there are many more) of the government briefing one thing then contradicting it, sometimes only hours later. |
|
By:
I'd check out Russia.
I'm sure I read on this site a week ago that they'd closed the border with China back in January. And were sending other arrivals back who weren't residents. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/20/coronavirus-in-russia-the-latest-news-march-20-a69117 |
|
By:
Pokermonster ,i said similar on the football forum yesterday that this thing will never die down as it will be somewhere in the world .
I think there will be a vaccine before long ...seems to be a lot of very clever people out there all rushing ahead with this . otherwise we will just have to quarantine every bugger who comes to our shores  |
|
By:
Extract from the summary of the Imperial College report …….
The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. |
|
By:
' watch whats happening for whatever reason in lombardy and not in the other 80% of Italy,and not do anything you can to stop it ,its beyond me, what argument are you trying to win, I dont get it '
------------------------- 1ST time poster ...sorry ,what do you mean ,what is the latest there ? |
|
By:
In the case of COVID-19, it will be at least a 12-18 months before a vaccine is available. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that initial vaccines will have high efficacy.
|
|
By:
That paper has been around for a some days. Just because they have loudly been proclaiming it, it doesn't mean the government's advisors / civil servants) didn't know it. In fact he was one of the advisors.
My point would be that people with a psychological profile and prejudice of "I don't like boris, boris stupid, tories stupid, stupid boris, he lies, stupid boris" will take some public information from one group of advisors about the pandemic, and then use this to reinforce their own belief system about Boris. As if Boris, in amongst everything else, is supposed to already be a pre-trained expert on viral pandemics. And isn't it just stupid he's not known all this all along. Not fit to be PM. You'll note the date on that paper, from someone who apparently advises Boris, is MONDAY THIS WEEK. (College drop out Corbyn would've done better I'm sure, he's the Magic Grandpa who is omniscient about all disease and everything that will happen in advance). |
|
By:
Perhaps our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US healthcare systems being exceeded many times over. In the most effective mitigation strategy examined, which leads to a single, relatively short epidemic (case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly), the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold under the more optimistic scenario for critical care requirements that we examined.
In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US. In the UK, this conclusion has only been reached in the last few days, with the refinement of estimates of likely ICU demand due to COVID-19 based on experience in Italy and the UK (previous planning estimates assumed half the demand now estimated) and with the NHS providing increasing certainty around the limits of hospital surge capacity. We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound. Many countries have adopted such measures already, but even those countries at an earlier stage of their epidemic (such as the UK) will need to do so imminently. |
|
By:
And also Angoose the elephant in the room is viruses mutate? This one obviously LIKES to mutate as that's why we have it in the first place.
They might just be rolling out the 19 virus when it becomes Covid20... or Covid19B. I mean what's the chance of a virus mutating in like 1 billion hosts to play in..  I'm sure I've heard the NHS struggling as they had the "wrong" flu vaccine for a given year. There's still no HIV vaccine and I'm sure they've been trying :( |
|
By:
just checking that paper is what the government is using
|
|
By:
Sorry, meant to say: "rolling out the 19 VACCINE".
Got to remember everyone of us is in its sights, me, my family, Boris, his pregnant wife, his dad (mum?) etc. Me "defending" what is beind done is just realism and trying to see things from the governments perspective, who are in a difficult place. The rest of Europe is in the same boat or a far worse boat. Revisionism with the benefits of hindsight as to what we should have done weeks ago is a bit mad. Its only a few very short days since Trump started that travel ban, at the time when things weren't so dramatic, people seemed to think it was OTT. Now every country is shutting borders, even land borders in the EU. Hindsight is a wonderful thing! |
|
By:
The possibility of the virus mutating is a further argument supporting the WHO's advice to TEST, TEST, TEST.
|
|
By:
Every person who has died here from related or co19 bug - 149 or 167 whichever number it is, all had underlying medical conditions announced lunchtime ish
not nice if it one of your family |
|
By:
Yes jolly but it's only dated Monday as I say. The government has to have balance between not crushing the economy, crushing people's rights, and getting out the other end. People demanding a total lockdown (not that I'm saying you are jolly, I'm concious now of ad homimeniminingeim you
).. then what? For how long? What is the endgame? Do they have one? It's a global pandemic, it's not going away, it's well and truly out there and it'll probably just become a part of life across the globe imho, like the flu.I'm reminded of when the Europeans went to the Americas. Diseases they just shook off slaughtered the local populations by accident who had no immunity. |
|
By:
Reading the paper, you do feel that too much emphasis is placed on the potential social and economic costs.
You heard this yesterday in the "expert only" briefing, they spoke of loneliness and denial of opportunity for exercise. Maybe we need an equation that corelates marginal deaths to increases in loneliness  |
|
By:
just checking i will say this one last time.
this is the model the government is using, they only released it on monday after they were criticised for keeping it secret. this meant it wasnt peer reviewed - since monday i have seen some negative comments on it. the model fell at the first hurdle so they changed direction radically, from mitigation to suppression. i have no faith that they will get it right second time around. corbyn is irrelevant but you mention him yet again (what was that you were saying about pavlov? ). |
|
By:
Pubs and restaurants TOLD to close.
|
|
By:
Loneliness is a leading link to death isn't it?
The stats on mortality for lonely people were AFAIK worse than smoking. Ok at least as bad: https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20180504/loneliness-rivals-obesity-smoking-as-health-risk I'm going to add "sex doll manufacturers" to companies that'll do well out of the isolation period |
|
By:
Not denying that loneliness can be linked to premature death.
But does avoiding a marginal increase in loneliness justify having more fatalities from COVID-19 ? And is it certain that loneliness would increase during a lockdown? How do we know what behaviours would result from a lockdown, neighbours looking after those who live alone, family members making additional phone calls and skype calls. |
|
By:
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a lockdown but ..
"And is it certain that loneliness would increase during a lockdown?" Yea that's a given, especially for older folk (but not just them). Old folks centres shut, old folks home stopping all visitors, people scared to go visit neighbours, family .. Mothers day for some is virtually cancelled this year from what I've been hearing. It's a card and a phone call. Not really the same :( For some people their work is their main social outlet, work from home (or unemployment) does away with that as well. THANK GOD FOR 'SPOONS!! |
|
By:
It's not a given for the reason I've highlighted.
You make a valid point regarding social contact at work, no idea how many people live alone though. I did read that lawyers are awaiting an increase in divorces as a result of couples spending more time together. Good news for them then. |
|
By:
I will ask you a question , if I may ?
Is it fair to say that the age of the victims , or afflicted , seems to be dropping ? |
|
By:
all had underlying conditions ALL
|
|
By:
Where did you get that information from, the media ?
|
|
By:
39yr bloke had 2 years to live but via the media he was the youngest etc.
|
|
By:
it takes the easy victims first, sadly quite a few in italy are health care workers. without the appropriate ppe they are fecked.
|