COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ban-jani said:
And what happens once the lockdown finishes?

I put it to you to explain what will happen in these countries when the virus is still present and everyone is allowed to go to work and to continue their lives?
Click to expand...
Easy. Have another lock down.

And a third and a fourth and however many are needed until we have a vaccine. Do whatever is necessary to stop people from dying needlessly. I am all for fiscal prudence, but in war time, you just do what you need to do. Borrowing has to go through the roof to pay for the war effort and everyone gets that. If we need more financial support to stop would-be sound businesses from going under, then that's what we must do.

We need a war-like mentality here, not our frankly laissez faire thinking.
 
BobKowalski said:
All of these countries have greater previous experience with outbreaks and also have better systems in place to cope. To be honest I would be wary of dismissing their approach given their greater experience and capacity to manage the problem.
Click to expand...

I’m not dismissing their approach. I just think we’re fucked regardless and their approach, that may work for them, probably won’t here.
 
Renneronline said:
If you take the time to visit Tricky Trevs post earlier today, he was mentioning an interview and quoted some comments from it. I don't read newspapers, and if you cared to back track on any of my previous comments in this thread you'll find that I rarely mention anything other than my own thoughts. I don't hug around the figures and graphs usually presented because, when all said and done, they are all 'best' guess no matter the brain capacity that have come up with them. Some can be highly persuasive and yet get blown apart by an unknown or omitted results that weren't deemed to have had an influence when compiling them. I'm not going to further respond. But I will say that you really should not try and encapsulate people into a bracket that you've dreamt up for them, without first giving someone the benefit of the doubt, it may cause less frustrations in the future...how ever long that future may be. Thanks for having taken the time out to read what I've posted, sorry if it doesn't align with your opinion, that's life, as they say. Take care.
Click to expand...
I was trying to ascertain where you got the "extra 500,000" deaths line from, as it is dangerous to quote this (unless you have a reliable source) because it will affect other people's opinions if they choose to believe it and ultimately support it. Do you really think the government would be choosing this option? And people defending it? I wouldn't if it was predicted. (By the way, odd that you accept this prediction but nothing else).

I have no idea what you mean by me dreaming up anything, I am however aware of the dangers of spreading false or incorrect data, whether maliciously or inadvertently. I'm not trying to score points and if you read any of my posts I always try to include supporting links to my sources so people can choose to either agree or ignore it.

Here's another professor of epidemiology, this time at Berkeley University explaining the likely short- to mid-term outcome of this virus.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/e...ty-flattens-the-coronavirus-curve-80512581952
 
cibaman said:
I’m not even sure that the behavioural science justifies not taking some actions. Yes, there will be a risk of quarantine fatigue if we go into lockdown too soon. But it seems that we’re going to take an approach of adopting minimal controls until we reach the point where we will suddenly go into lockdown. That’s going to be a huge shock to the system for which many will be unprepared and will rebel. Might it not be better to build up gradually, imposing restrict on leisure actions first before Big Bang?
Click to expand...
I totally agree mate.

Every other country is taking the approach you suggest.

They’re using us as guinea pigs for a new idea.
 
Apologies if its been covered as this thread moves quite quickly but in regards to "Herd immunity" last week they were saying if you contract it and recover you are not immune and can catch it again, so what has changed that we now think we will be ok if 60% of the population get it? Also if we already have two strains you'd imagine it could mutate again and even if you become immune to one strain would you necessarily be immune to the others?
 
Uffa said:
Guys, I don't know if you've noticed from what your correspondents in Italy have said, but there's no panic buying here lol. Food stores (and food shops) are open, farms are a-working and so are factories.
You can go outside and buy food and useful stuff as you usually do.
There's no need to ridicule yourselves with panic buying that causes more harm than good.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe that British people do not over-react when an emergency arises!
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
The only relevant information though is how many people are ill enough to be admitted to hospital and how many of them go home. We will never know (in real time) how many people have it and how would being told you haven’t got it help? You might have the test and pick the virus up on the way home. Test comes back negative and you’re off down the pub. Best advice is, any symptoms stay at home.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but for me the point is that the media and social media will probably still continue to quote inaccurate ratios of infection/ICU - infection/mortality rates which in my opinion won't help as those ratios will inevitably get worse - fear is the prevailing emotion out there at the moment and there are a lot of people that are happy to trade on that commodity for whatever reason. There is a secondary front in this situation and that's controlling the information that is disseminated to the general public and from my experience the UK still takes a lot of its guidance from the tabloids and that has an impact on government policy.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Easy. Have another lock down.

And a third and a fourth and however many are needed until we have a vaccine. Do whatever is necessary to stop people from dying needlessly. I am all for fiscal prudence, but in war time, you just do what you need to do. Borrowing has to go through the roof to pay for the war effort and everyone gets that. If we need more financial support to stop would-be sound businesses from going under, then that's what we must do.

We need a war-like mentality here, not our frankly laissez faire thinking.
Click to expand...

But then there’s no chance to build herd immunity?
 
Ban-jani said:
Those leading the government.
Click to expand...
But you don’t seem to understand that when 9 experts are saying one thing, and the other 1 saying is saying another (for the uk) that it’s perfectly reasonable to question why that is and whether that’s correct.

Doing so does necessitate anyone believing they know better than the UK CMO.
 
Blu1 said:
I can tell you one thing this self isolation is totally bollox must be at least 4 people coughing in my office yet they are still in work! Wtf
Click to expand...
Could it be that there are usually at least 4 people coughing in your office at this time of year, but you don’t normally notice it?
 
ell said:
Apologies if its been covered as this thread moves quite quickly but in regards to "Herd immunity" last week they were saying if you contract it and recover you are not immune and can catch it again, so what has changed that we now think we will be ok if 60% of the population get it? Also if we already have two strains you'd imagine it could mutate again and even if you become immune to one strain would you necessarily be immune to the others?
Click to expand...

It's been reported that it doesn't mutate much.

I think the expectation is that there will be residual immunity - I haven't seen anything saying otherwise, although I have seen some badly mangled statements about that.

As for multiple strains, impossible to answer - it will depend on how similar the strains are, and how the vaccine relates to them.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
I was trying to ascertain where you got the "extra 500,000" deaths line from, as it is dangerous to quote this (unless you have a reliable source) because it will affect other people's opinions if they choose to believe it and ultimately support it. Do you really think the government would be choosing this option? And people defending it? I wouldn't if it was predicted. (By the way, odd that you accept this prediction but nothing else).

I have no idea what you mean by me dreaming up anything, I am however aware of the dangers of spreading false or incorrect data, whether maliciously or inadvertently. I'm not trying to score points and if you read any of my posts I always try to include supporting links to my sources so people can choose to either agree or ignore it.

Here's another professor of epidemiology, this time at Berkeley University explaining the likely short- to mid-term outcome of this virus.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/e...ty-flattens-the-coronavirus-curve-80512581952
Click to expand...
In fairness, the Chief Medical Officer said their worst case scenario model was that 80% of the population would get it.

He also said it appears to have just less than 1% mortality rate.

A journalist asked him the potential deaths if those figures come to pass.

He said he didn’t want to quote that figure as it would become a headline that would alarm people, but it was a simple calculation anyone could do.

If 80% of the British public got it and around 1% of them died, it would be roughly 500,000 deaths. A similar figure to WW2.
 
Uffa said:
Guys, I don't know if you've noticed from what your correspondents in Italy have said, but there's no panic buying here lol. Food stores (and food shops) are open, farms are a-working and so are factories.
You can go outside and buy food and useful stuff as you usually do.
There's no need to ridicule yourselves with panic buying that causes more harm than good.
Click to expand...


Cool, was just a passing thought i had.

I doubt anybody has been through anything like this so i don't know how far things go and where it comes to a grinding halt, if indeed it does.
 
Shaelumstash said:
In fairness, the Chief Medical Officer said their worst case scenario model was that 80% of the population would get it.

He also said it appears to have just less than 1% mortality rate.

A journalist asked him the potential deaths if those figures come to pass.

He said he didn’t want to quote that figure as it would become a headline that would alarm people, but it was a simple calculation anyone could do.

If 80% of the British public got it and around 1% of them died, it would be roughly 500,000 deaths. A similar figure to WW2.
Click to expand...
But not an EXTRA 500,000 deaths, i.e. 1million.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top