Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 140 comments are related to the topic:
Peter Hitchins . Mail on sunday 10/5/20.
Peter Hitchins . Mail on sunday 10/5/20.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 140
|
By:
Cheers Mex
|
|
By:
For example a 50 year old teacher is healthy but their husband is in high risk group. NHS staff & care homes staff would pretty much need to leave their families and live in work accommodation.
In that example the husband only would need isolating. NHS staff & care homes staff would similarly have to stay away from vulnerable family only. Isolate the vulnerable, it's a smaller task. |
|
By:
 Sweden deaths peaked around the same time after deaths started as UK. No lockdown required. People are falling into the trap because we did lockdown it made deaths decline. There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
lurka
10 May 20 14:35 Joined: 25 Oct 10 | Topic/replies: 15,432 | Blogger: lurka's blog May 10, 2020 -- 2:27PM, InsiderTrader wrote: Sweden deaths peaked around the same time after deaths started as UK.No lockdown required.People are falling into the trap because we did lockdown it made deaths decline.There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero. It must be at least 20 times now that it has been explained to you that the lockdown was introduced to control the SPREAD, yet you keep harping on about deaths every time you mention it. Why is this? ^ It was actually brought in to stop the NHS being overrun. It never was overrun. Infact Nightingales barely used. Sweden never overrun either without lockdown. We have no mothballed Nightingales so mission accomplished. There is zero evidence that lockdown stopped the NHS being overrun. Zero. |
|
By:
IT, without lockdown, would the number of COVID-19 cases in the UK be higher, lower, or the same ?
Please support your answer with evidence. |
|
By:
Define 'lockdown' and tell me how many cases you have in the community before 'lockdown'.
If we had gone with the plan of letting younger people out put a ring of steel around the old and the vulnerable we would have had less deaths. We may have had more cases in young people but hard to tell. We do not even know how many cases we have had as it stands. The point is by changing the status quo and locking up young healthy people you need some evidence to support doing that. There is zero evidence it has help protect the old and vulnerable. Zero. |
|
By:
How were you defining lockdown when you stated that "there is zero evidence that lockdown stopped the NHS being overrun. Zero." ?
|
|
By:
What happened in the UK on 23rd March.
If you go back to that time you can see the measures put in. We had already made mistake of shutting primary schools before that actually. No evidence that helps either. The main thing that helps is social distancing. Never go within 2 metres of someone else and virus would virtually vanish. |
|
By:
So why did you ask me to define lockdown ?
|
|
By:
Every other day they talk about the R0 number being further reduced from a peak of near 4 to well below 1.
A schoolchild could tell you that by massively restricting the number of people each person comes into contact with on a daily basis, you will massively reduce the spread of the virus. Some, despite all the expert evidence about the reproductive rate of the virus, refuse to give the lockdown any credit for that or else focus on the number of deaths because they know the lockdown has been massively successful in reducing the spread and that they can't argue with that. It has been explained to you ad nauseam that the UK had let it get out of hand too much to simply have social distancing measures with no lockdown. Sweden did not and it hasn't got out of hand over there to justify a lockdown at any stage. They are not Nazis, they would have locked down if the spread got too out of hand. It didn't. In the UK and most of the rest of Europe it did. The UK didn't want to lock down, they had no choice. Complain about incompetent inaction months ago if you have a problem with the current policy. Stop harping on about the inevitable consequences of it for the nth time. |
|
By:
It depends in part on whether people getting infected is solely a bad thing. The symptoms for the many are mild or none at all.
If and it’s still if, you can’t get it twice then herd immunity remains a long term plan. To do that you need people mixing. |
|
By:
Bad thing : you become critically ill or die
Good thing : you don't become critically ill or die or develop long term damage or infect someone else who goes on to become critically ill or die |
|
By:
Angoose the alternative to building up some sort of natural immunity in the population is living as we are for an indefinite period.
It is the child's way out to take that route and will eventually bankrupt the country OR more and more people will break the rules until it happens anyway. |
|
By:
Tell me about your AI programming.
Is it focused on machine learning, natural language processing, robotics, something else ? |
|
By:
As a statto goose, your pessimism is a concern.
Possibly millions have had this thing and recovered, hopefully never to get it again. How do millions get it? Infection... |
|
By:
Possibly and hopefully.
As IT might say, "There is zero evidence that is the case. Zero.". |
|
By:
All on a day where we have had snow, hailstones, and bright sunshine simulatenaously
 |
|
By:
What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems.
We have no vaccine. there is no cure. In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it. There is no alternative. The lockdown is a joke. Its a massive human rights abuse and thats without factoring in people with noncovid illnesses who could be saved/get treatment but cannot due to the worst political class in human history |
|
By:
agree with all that RQ. spot on.
|
|
By:
spot on, LOL
YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK ITS UP TO THEM, lots of people will put work on the backburner protect,them and their,s for as long as possible,100,s of things which once seemed important to some people are now redundant ,eating out,pubs,leisure,public transport,can all be lived without,meaning the millions who may be desperate to return to work will have no work to return to |
|
By:
they will force them back when the free money stops and the "stats" look good.
|
|
By:
Racingqueen
10 May 20 17:24 Joined: 02 Jul 11 | Topic/replies: 5,352 | Blogger: Racingqueen's blog What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems. We have no vaccine. there is no cure. In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it. There is no alternative. The lockdown is a joke. Its a massive human rights abuse and thats without factoring in people with noncovid illnesses who could be saved/get treatment but cannot due to the worst political class in human history ^ Probably the best post since the start of this Covid scandal. |
|
By:
Recycling Centres to open too.
They need somewhere to get rid of the shoite PPE tbf. |
|
By:
i'll buy it off them and sell it back to them next time
 |
|
By:
 I posted on wrong fred, apologies |
|
By:
The absolute idiot Boris is quarantining air travellers?
I cannot believe this is the standard of political leadership we have and he is matched right across Europe by even worse leaders. For 50 years, Britain has welcomed in everyone with their open borders 5hite and now overnight, they shut up shop. Vast swathes of people no longer no when they can return to their countries of birth to visit families |
|
By:
Racingqueen 10 May 20 17:24
What we see today is the effects of a society and public who are spoiled and expect the government to solve all their issues/problems. Agree with that. Most of them seem unaware or untroubled that they will bear the cost of doing nowt for months. |
|
By:
its like Brexit,price worth paying for sum
|
|
By:
agree with IT excellent post RQ 5.24pm
the "cure" to all virulent diseases is to address the cause not big pharma's drugs & vaccines however most people are so far down the allopathic medicine rabbit hole that they cant see the wood for the trees over this |
|
By:
1st time poster 10 May 20 18:53
its like Brexit,price worth paying for sum Its not at all, we've never risked losing the lot since WW2. |
|
By:
RQ/IT we don't need a vaccine or cure to have some sort of "normal " without digging 400,000 graves.
If infection come down to a few hundred a day & we have plenty of testing, tracking (maybe apps & human follow up) then we may be able to have some sort of open economy. We would only need to keep R at 1 rather than trying to eliminate the virus. At the moment far too many people are being infected each day to be able to track anybody they have had contact with. If government or Hitchins want to open up UK soon then be honest about number of deaths & explain how health care can be provided. People wouldn't eat in restaurants/ visit pubs / shops if thought they were dangerous or if think that going for a beer could result in granny getting seriously ill. Just be honest- if 400,000 are worth it to get UK economy back to "normal " then explain that to UK public. The government/ opposition in UK (& pretty mush every other country) are worried that opening up country is too dangerous. |
|
By:
Illegals will be complaining the beaches are overcrowded.
|
|
By:
'In this case, the virus simply must run its course and if thats means deaths and inability of a health service to deal with it, so be it. There is no alternative.'
Nonsense. They have just announced a gradual easing of lockdown restrictions and the virus is still here. There's your alternative and they are not letting the virus run its course. Another alternative was to take it seriously in the beginning instead of sitting on your hands for weeks and letting the spread get out of control. Letting it run its course is the worst option. Even Belarus has taken some restrictive measures and they haven't had an outbreak anything like the UK. Stop talking absolute drivel. |
|
By:
Don't think there's an epidemiologist on the planet who says we should 'let it run its course' but perhaps you can produce evidence from one who says that?
Letting it 'run its course', ie doing nothing to restrict spread, is what got you into this mess in the first place yet there are still some mugs on here saying we should do exactly that again and people saying it's the best idea they've heard? What do you think will happen then? What's that famous definition of insanity again?  |
|
By:
lurka
10 May 20 19:37 Joined: 25 Oct 10 | Topic/replies: 15,440 | Blogger: lurka's blog Don't think there's an epidemiologist on the planet who says we should 'let it run its course' but perhaps you can produce evidence from one who says that? ^ If we let it run its course through the younger fitter population whilst the vulnerable isolate and wait for immunity to build you will minimize the level of death and the level economic ruin. |
|
By:
That is what will happen by default anyway as people slowly go out again.
We just have to hope the vulnerable and old are patient enough to wait for the immunity to build up and the transmissions to be brought to a standstill. |
|
By:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 2,813,503 registered deaths in the United States in 2017.
Cancer Deaths in 2017: 599,108 Percentage of total deaths: 21.3%. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929#cancer Conclusion: life comes with risks. |
|
By:
Mexico,
Why do you say Hitchens does not take into account '400,000 deaths' without lockdown? Hitchens clearly takes it into account. The only basis to believe in that is Ferguson's paper, which Hitchens believes to be laughable (as do many others) Similar methodology predicted Sweden would have 40,000 dead by May 1st. |
|
By:
How many did the model predict would die in the UK if all recommended measures were put in place ?
|