What would the result actually be if we did nowt?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

So it seems we are in for another 6 months of restrictions.  Im not going to list the implications of this but a few are: closed hospitality over Xmas will be a disaster for many businesses, retailers will suffer as we dont go and buy that new shirt/frock for the party, spectator sports wont have gate/pie/booze receipts for months etc etc.  There is also the grassroots sport which will effect our kids/health/mental health etc.  There is a massive knock-on for all other industries...

I genuinely feel pretty grim about everything now (I also suffer from SAD and hate the closing-in nights and impending crappy weather and cold) and just want normality whilst of course I will continue to be a good citizen and follow all rules to the letter.

If we just let, as Boris said last night, the virus rip through the population, what would be the actual and non hyperbolic outcome?  Hospitals dealt with the disease well last time and we now have pent up capacity waiting to be used plus the additional ventilators and drugs which are known to reduce symptoms in the most serious cases. Are there any people who actually think we should remove all restrictions and what would any government think would be acceptable collateral damage (in the form of deaths)?  1, 2 200, 25000?  

Edit for clarity: I dont want a single unnecessary death. Just musing about the repercussions of doing so.

Post edited at 08:39
11
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

My call: Around 250,000 to 350,000 dead by Dec 31st and perhaps 3,000,000 survivors with significant long term health damage.

That’s what I reckon.  Including extra hospital capacity and lessons learnt on when not to ventilate and on other clinical care. Except we wouldn’t get to that point as the public and industry would go in to a self-motivated lockdown. As was starting to happen in mid March.

Also becoming an international pariah with all transport links cut including lorry freight.  Just like France threatened the first time around when we weren’t acting.

Post edited at 08:22
13
 john arran 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

A few comments:

1) "Last time", when it became more than clear that it would "rip through the population", we went into lockdown. Hospitals only coped because the tide of cases was stemmed.

2) It's hard to put an economic value on a loved one's life.

3) It isn't just the death toll we need to worry about; there appear to be many that suffer respiratory problems long after the virus has moved on.

4) The only people I've ever heard consider letting it rip through society (other than batshit politicians) have been in a relatively safe position personally, i.e. not elderly and without notable other health issues.

5
In reply to john arran:

This. Especially the bit about lockdown = NHS coped. 

2
 spenser 23 Sep 2020
In reply to john arran:

RE: Economic value of life, this is absolutely true on an individual level, however on a population level where the monetary cost of saving one life may prevent the saving of multiple other lives a value is required:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#:~:text=The%20value%20of%20life....

Most of my relatives are in their 60s now and one in her early 90s, along with lots of friends so the concept is not a palatable one, however said elderly relative is waiting for some necessary surgery which will likely be delayed by a second wave of COVID. I live 100-200 miles from all of my family and I know that some of them are struggling with issues exacerbated by lockdown and one is at risk due to other health issues. Cognitively I can understand the concept of a VPF, emotionally it's a horrible idea.

I've been lucky so far in that the only person I know who has definitely caught the virus was a former colleague to whom I wasn't particularly close and she has recovered.

2
 GrahamD 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

There was a great Life Scientific interview with prof Neil Ferguson yesterday. Based on what they knew about the virus back in March, their models showed about 500,000 deaths.  Applying what we know now to the situation back then, he reckons this is a slight underestimate. 

4
 jkarran 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If we actually did nothing, just let it rip: we'd need to rebuild our healthcare system from ruin over the coming decade and I suspect we'd see 250k+ dead of covid, quite possibly twice that in 6 months and maybe the same again of routine treatable conditions going untreated and indirect effects. It would radically reform our national identity and politics.

In reality we'd quickly recoil in horror and take individual, business and local community level action to mitigate the spread and consequences. The economy vs lives choice is a false one, lives and confidence are the economy. Again our sense of ourselves and others would be radically reformed with unpredictable consequences. 

Jk

Post edited at 09:09
4
 M Lyons 23 Sep 2020
In reply to john arran:

> 2) It's hard to put an economic value on a loved one's life.

Emotionally hard yes, but possible and in fact this is a standard concept applied in many walks of life (e.g. when determining what safety measures to introduce in a work place a balance is made between mitigating the potential impact and the costs {/feasibility etc} of implementing the mitigation) and there are published tables (strange to imagine I know!) with recognised values at each age of life. 

It also happens in the healthcare sector. For example, NICE are regularly making decisions on which life-saving or life-changing treatments / drugs can be offered on the NHS and this includes an economic consideration and there are many cases of when drugs / treatments, that would have saved lives, aren’t offered.

I would love to know if such a consideration has been made when determining which restrictions to put in place as it should be possible and in theory would be the correct way of approaching the decision making 

mattmurphy 23 Sep 2020
In reply to john arran:

But what if we never get a vaccine or we get a vaccine, but it’s not effective in the elderly.

In these circumstances, sooner or later a lot of people will die.

3
 groovejunkie 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Is it not the case that we are essentially "doing nowt"? I watched last nights briefing and heard nothing but waffle and the underlying implication that its all our fault anyway.

Other than increased face mask use and table service (when we came out of lockdown wasn't this supposed to be the case anyway and everyone just ignored it?) I can't see anything thats going to make much difference.....sincerely hope I'm wrong. 

4
 summo 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If you did nothing once or if deaths were rocketing, folk would just self implement lots of measures themselves. It's a question of how high it might go first. 

 J101 23 Sep 2020

> 4) The only people I've ever heard consider letting it rip through society (other than batshit politicians) have been in a relatively safe position personally, i.e. not elderly and without notable other health issues.

And often from the safety of a home office whilst saying everyone else should go back to work! 

1
 galpinos 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Hospitals dealt with the disease well last time and we now have pent up capacity waiting to be used plus the additional ventilators and drugs which are known to reduce symptoms in the most serious cases.

It's worth noting the impact on our hospitals that allowed the to cope. Don't disregard the reduction in other services offered (and assotiated death/poor outcomes) and the increased workload and mental strain put on those covering Covid wards.

 john arran 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> But what if we never get a vaccine or we get a vaccine, but it’s not effective in the elderly.

> In these circumstances, sooner or later a lot of people will die.

Sounds a bit like you may be saying: 'Our best efforts may in the end come to nought, so what's the use in wasting our time trying to develop vaccines that could save countless millions.'

3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If we did nothing the number of deaths would keep rising every week until we got scared enough to do something.   The longer we let it run the more infection there would be in the community and the longer and/or harder we would need to lock down to get it back into control.

The way to get a shorter or milder lockdown is to not let it build up in the first place by doing something earlier.   The problem is that to get ahead of exponential growth you need to do unpopular things before it looks like they are necessary.

The other counter intuitive thing is that when you open up one thing, if you want to keep R the same you need to shut down something else.   People's 'sense of fairness' says that if they can go to school or work then they should be able to see their friends or go to the pub but that's not how it works - if they do something that will push R up like opening schools they will need to balance it with something in the other direction.

1
mattmurphy 23 Sep 2020
In reply to john arran:

Well it’s a bit more nuanced than that.

I really just want to flag that the whole Gov strategy seems to be dependant on getting an effective vaccine (and by that I mean effective in the elderly) by late spring next year.

The virus is primarily a disease of the elderly, ive had it (I’m in my late 20s) and I don’t want to sound flippant, but I’ve had worse colds, albeit the colds didn’t last so long.

If the vaccine doesn’t work in the elderly than we will see 400k deaths from covid regardless of the timeframe this takes place over. Obviously this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aiming for an effective vaccine.

How many years of seasonal lockdowns would be acceptable before we decide that we can’t wait for a vaccine. Surely not before the economy is destroyed and we have 20+% unemployment? Could we lockdown ever winter for the next 5 years?

I’ve got a feeling that compliance is likely to be reasonably poor this time round so I think the government will struggle to get the r rate below 1 regardless of the rules and penalties put in place.

13
 john arran 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> I really just want to flag that the whole Gov strategy seems to be dependant on getting an effective vaccine (and by that I mean effective in the elderly) by late spring next year.

A vaccine doesn't need to be particularly effective in the elderly, just in a sufficiently high proportion of the population in general to prevent infections spreading exponentially. It seems to be the young that are mainly responsible for virus transmission, so reducing the virus incidence in this group could have a major effect on the virus prevalence overall. Also, the quality of any vaccine developed would need to be balanced inversely with any lockdown or restrictive measures implemented. The first 'effective' vaccines will almost certainly not be 100% effective and allow all restrictions to be lifted, but may well allow people's movement and activities gradually to begin returning to normal.

1
 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think we'd be in the situation where you're having a heart attack or in a rta, you phone 999 and no one picks up. 

Grim.

Edit. This wouldn't actually happen, once the hospitals started filling up and the staff were getting sick, we'd go back to lockdown and suffer the consequences of that. Also grim. 

Post edited at 10:43
2
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to groovejunkie:

> Is it not the case that we are essentially "doing nowt"? [...]. Other than increased face mask use and table service (when we came out of lockdown wasn't this supposed to be the case anyway and everyone just ignored it?) I can't see anything thats going to make much difference.....sincerely hope I'm wrong. 

I think we are doing quite a lot now - but a lot of it has already become normalised and falls below the radar.  To give a few non-exhaustive examples:

  1. Way for working from home than before lockdown
  2. Workplaces having been thoroughly risk assessed with control measures everywhere 
  3. Contact tracing and testing, and regular resting of workers at high risk of asymptomatically infecting the vulnerable
  4. A lot of older people are robustly isolating themselves from friends and family
  5. Self isolation on symptoms pending a test, or on inbound travel

So I think we are doing a lot different now, although it all feels a bit half-arsed and the guidance chops and changes confusingly, it is having an effect.  You only have to look at outbreaks like the recent Bolton super-spreader, the meat packing plants, or some recent student parties, to see how quickly it can turn to crap without these measures.  

1
 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

Politically its unacceptable to have a high death count.Let us say we were getting daily press briefings and the count was aboue 100,000. Do you really think any UK govt would survive that?

If other countries can get their population to adapt and manage the position alot better, then there is no reason why we cannot learn and be a bit more disciplined.

The economy is not totally destroyed, it is just some sectors. And within those sectors some are being entreprenurial and adapting.

2
mattmurphy 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

I don’t think the government would survive 100,000 deaths a year, but to keep the number of deaths below that in a winter you would need some lockdown/ social distancing measures.

Without a vaccine it would likely take 4/5 winters to get heard immunity if you had 100k deaths a year (4/5*100k = approx the number of total deaths forecast).

That’s 4/5 years of a weakened economy, high unemployment ect.

Would you stomach 4/5 years of restrictions on your life? And even if the economy is okay-ish now, regardless of whether you work in the public or private sector your job will be looking very vulnerable by year 2/3/4 of the lockdown cycles.

6
 groovejunkie 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > Is it not the case that we are essentially "doing nowt"? [...]. Other than increased face mask use and table service (when we came out of lockdown wasn't this supposed to be the case anyway and everyone just ignored it?) I can't see anything thats going to make much difference.....sincerely hope I'm wrong. 

> I think we are doing quite a lot now - but a lot of it has already become normalised and falls below the radar.  

I agree with many of your points, my point was that last nights announcement added little to the measures already in place and the measures that people have taken on themselves to do - and whether we like it or not infections are going up up up. So it's currently not enough. 

When the Govt (before yesterdays U-Turn) said get back to the office a lot of business had already said "no thanks, we're okay as we are".

However, they've had six months to establish a bombproof test and trace and having farmed out it to their mates, thats now falling apart at the seams due to the "unexpected" rise in demand when we finalised opening every bit of society up. And in terms of self isolation wasn't there a recent ONS survey that said full compliance was only about 20%?  

Johnson is a popularist so you can still meet five mates in the pub tonight, a different five mates tomorrow night etc etc. The only difference being you'll need to binge drink between 9 and 10 to compensate for the lost hour. And when the pub shuts, you'll have to go back to one of your five mates houses to carry on. They will ultimately have to backpedal on this, undoubtedly when it's too late again.

I've already said I hope I'm wrong on this, but I live in the north west and we are now in month three of enhanced restrictions and they are not working.

1
 Lord_ash2000 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't feel we'll ever do "nothing" even if the government did nothing communities, individuals and businesses would take action depending on their own interests and personal risk they are happy with. 

But I do get the impression that short of an effective vaccine, we will fail against this virus, it is just a matter of time. Our population as a whole is too liberal to maintain harsh restrictions for any length of time and full lockdowns are just too costly and as the first one proved, only temporary in their effectiveness. I think the government can put in place whatever restrictions it wants but people will simply stop following them after a while and no government can police it on a scale big enough to force compliance. As such I'm confident the virus will spread through the population regardless and those it'll kill will die. All we can do really is an attempt to manage the spread rate so it's not too intense for the health services and economy. 

Personally I think we should just let it rip through the healthy population and for the vulnerable and old to shield themselves the best they can to maintain a risk level they can accept. We'd fight to the last man to defend our freedoms and values, we've ran thousands of fit healthy men into machine-gun fire for it in WW2. And today, I think if it comes down to it we'd sacrifice a percentage of the elderly population to enable the rest of us to live free again. 

It may sound dire, but what is the alternative really? Live in fear, isolation and poverty indefinitely? It's not going away, you can suppress it by crippling the economy but it'll just come back, short of a cure herd immunity is the only solution and you only get that by most people getting infected, the longer this takes to achieve the more drawn out the suffering is. 

Nature is a harsh mistress and has been killing us off on mass from all manner of illnesses since the dawn of mankind. It's only really in the last 50-70 years we've hit a lucky streak where we've cured many things and had nothing new pop up for a while. Compared to 99.99% of human existence our mortality rate even at the high of covid has been exceptionally low.  

 

27
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to groovejunkie:

>  my point was that last nights announcement added little to the measures already in place and the measures that people have taken on themselves to do - and whether we like it or not infections are going up up up. So it's currently not enough. 

I agree with you entirely on that.  I assume we'll bring pub closing times forwards an hour for each additional 1,000 cases/day...

> However, they've had six months to establish a bombproof test and trace and having farmed out it to their mates, thats now falling apart at the seams due to the "unexpected" rise in demand when we finalised opening every bit of society up. 

Apparently the SAGE model for demand got it wrong.  I could weep.  I've attached a plot from the government dashboard.  A 12 year old with a straight edge could have predicted the meeting of those two curves 8 weeks ago.  Another factor I hadn't thought of but came across today is that a lot of the staff in the Lighthouse labs were technicians and postdocs from the university sector, and now universities are finally reopening their facilities widely, they're going back to their pre-covid jobs.  

>  They will ultimately have to backpedal on this, undoubtedly when it's too late again.

This is my worry - that once again we will fail to take relatively mild measures and be forced into far tougher measures down the line.  A lot of people are really suffering from the restrictions emotionally and mentally as well as the economic impact, and this time round the weather is worsening not improving.  Like you, I hope I am wrong.


 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

Its not a question of stomaching restrictions. .. to negative. Readjusting to a new normal.Learn to wash your hands etc.

Your a student of biology you should be able to apply your knowledge as to how to adjust.

And look at how for example Germans are more disciplined in following rules.

As regards your view of the economy, as I said it all depends on which sector you are in. Some will be rubbish. some fine and some will do very well.

I suspect your real issue is the new social life. It changes and adapts to a new norm. Pubs 20 plus years ago closed at 10.30 for example.Its hardly a big thing.

If you get too paranoid over  the changes it makes it worse for you in the long run.Other people just get on with it.

2
 groovejunkie 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Apparently the SAGE model for demand got it wrong.  I could weep.  I've attached a plot from the government dashboard.  A 12 year old with a straight edge could have predicted the meeting of those two curves 8 weeks ago.  Another factor I hadn't thought of but came across today is that a lot of the staff in the Lighthouse labs were technicians and postdocs from the university sector, and now universities are finally reopening their facilities widely, they're going back to their pre-covid jobs.  

Absolutely, can't help but think your average 12 year old would have a better handle on the situation than Dido Harding ever will!

mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to groovejunkie:

I agree.  The parts of NW England that have had extra measures have seen massive increases in Covid cases so I doubt these new measures will make much of a difference. It will however allow the government to blame (insert anyone you want) for increasing cases and their decision to cancel Christmas.

Reported today (for yesterday):  Bolton 88 new cases, Manchester 146.  Been similar all week.  

 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Cr#p. You just learn to adapt and modify your behaviour. it really is not difficult.

It may take a few months to sink in, but you can change your behaviour.

Its what happened in other pandemics, people learnt what to do and what not to do.But this time we can be a bit better informed.

And last. Have you noticed its usually men( mainly of a certian age)who object to the changes? Women are far more tolerant of it and seem to me to have a far better grasp of the reality.

Post edited at 12:01
6
 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

Time lag /delays probably account for most of this. Takes time for the measures to work.Its not an instant fix.

 timjones 23 Sep 2020
In reply to john arran:

> A vaccine doesn't need to be particularly effective in the elderly, just in a sufficiently high proportion of the population in general to prevent infections spreading exponentially.

If that is the case  it will be necessary to rapidly produce a vaccine in significantly larger quanitities than would be necessary if we could roll out a vaccine programme to the vulnerable first.
 

 timjones 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Another factor I hadn't thought of but came across today is that a lot of the staff in the Lighthouse labs were technicians and postdocs from the university sector, and now universities are finally reopening their facilities widely, they're going back to their pre-covid jobs.  

Is the process really so complex that you need a degree to work in the labs?

 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to timjones:

> Is the process really so complex that you need a degree to work in the labs?

No, and not all staff in such labs have degrees.

But ythey do need to be well trained in precise, methodical protocol driven workflow and record keeping and it takes some time to become proficient.  After lockdown, there were many such people sat at home twiddling their thumbs who went to the labs.  Now, they want to go back to work.   Even if readily trained people were available on-tap from previous labs, it would still take some time to train them in the specific protocols and systems of the Lighthouse labs and to validate them against those protocols and systems; as it is I imagine it's a scrabble to find trained staff.

 skog 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Why do you reject the obvious option of trying to slow the spread while holding out for a vaccine?

It looks very likely that we'll have some sort of vaccine next year, which quite possibly won't solve everything but should increase immunity substantially, making it much easier to control the spread with less restrictive measures until, hopefully, a more effective vaccine is available. If we're really lucky, we might even get a good vaccine next year that does solve most of the problems.

And even setting a vaccine aside, developing better treatment for it can reduce the mortality rate and perhaps the number of people having serious damage and health complications.

Letting the disease rip through the population before either of these things can happen is letting a lot of people die or become debilitated, when they probably don't have to.

And if immunity is short-lived, as it may well be, things could get an awful lot worse as survivors suffer second and subsequent infections, adding to the damage done to them. We could end up with a very large population of previously healthy but now ill people, suffering from lung damage and worse and getting even worse each time the disease goes round, many being finished off by it when it comes back to them. If we buy time, people will come up with ways to prevent or solve much of that - but we need to buy that time.

Your last paragraph sounds a bit 'survival of the fittest'. Being smart enough to solve problems such as this - by working together, adapting behaviour, and developing technologies - is probably humanity's greatest strength, the main thing that actually makes us 'fit'.

 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to skog:

Well said.  I agree totally with your post.

 Dax H 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If we do nothing we are screwed. I work predominantly in the utility and food sectors. 

The maintenance staff is mostly an aging workforce and everywhere I go they are stretched due to everywhere running just in time or breakdown maintenance. 

I know a few people who have had covid and it floored them, I'm not talking 7 days then crack on I'm talking overweight guys in their 50s being left as weak as a kitten months after, if it runs rife your water and electricity is going to stop and food won't be on the shelves. 

mattmurphy 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

It’s not just about modifying behaviour though.

The current restrictions (and I imagine the rules will change to stop households mixing will be soon in place too) are really quite onerous. Not being about to see loved ones ect places a lot of strain on individuals. This isn’t about not being able to go to the pub, it’s about not being able to live a normal life.

You also seem to dismiss the economic impact. The sectors that have been hardest hit employ huge numbers of young people.

The current restrictions place a hugely onerous burden on the vast majority of the population whilst it’s a very small minority that are at risk from covid. You’re essentially making the argument that we should screw the young to save the old.

5
 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

What would the result actually be if we did nowt?

Brazil, but worse.

 Greenbanks 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Cr#p. You just learn to adapt and modify your behaviour. it really is not difficult.<

This is inconsistent with what we know/understand about the way human beings operate.

> It may take a few months to sink in, but you can change your behaviour<

As above. You seem to be either naive or uninformed about the psychology of change.  'Change' is most successful when consistency and clarity of message obtains. Sadly, this is not a comms attribute of the present government (in England)

1
 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> It’s not just about modifying behaviour though.

> The current restrictions (and I imagine the rules will change to stop households mixing will be soon in place too) are really quite onerous. Not being about to see loved ones ect places a lot of strain on individuals.

Imagine how onerous that might feel if you could NEVER see them again, rather than for 6 more months or until, hopefully, a anti-virus is produced.

Then imagine how it might feel if it was you who brought the virus to them.

Post edited at 12:19
3
mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> What would the result actually be if we did nowt?

> Brazil, but worse.

I was going to say 'Germany would win on penalties', but its too serious for flippancy.

 john arran 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

What you're advocating boils down to condemning a great many people to an early grave so that you can go shopping without wearing a mask. To what depths has our society sunk that such an idea is even mooted, let alone actively touted by otherwise right-thinking individuals?

7
 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> I was going to say 'Germany would win on penalties', but its too serious for flippancy.


Never!

mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Time lag /delays probably account for most of this. Takes time for the measures to work.Its not an instant fix.

Couldn't disagree more.  Seven weeks of extra measures and we have seen huge increases cases.  This is not time lag.  I've heard the 'time lag' excuse and the 'we are testing more people' excuse wheeled out by health officials over the past 6 weeks.

 Lord_ash2000 23 Sep 2020
In reply to skog:

I've said baring a vaccine because obviously if we can develop an effective vaccine then that is the answer and there is no further discussion is needed. 

But if we can't, or it'll take longer than 6 months to a year to develop and immunise everyone then we need to face the reality of the situation we're in. 

I've said we should let it rip because what we are actually going to do is try and avoid letting it rip and fail because a large enough number of people will refuse to be contained. Meaning we'll just have a far more drawn out and costly version of the spread that'll ultimately kill a similar number of people but cost us all a lot more in the process.

Basically if we can't get a vaccine, we need to know when we're beaten on this one and take the short sharp shock option rather than long drawn out beat down we're heading for.

Post edited at 12:26
19
mattmurphy 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I think the point I was making follows on from my earlier point that we might not have an effective vaccine by next year or potentially ever.

All the arguments that are being made are on the premise that covid is cured next year or that hand washing and wearing a mask alone is enough to prevent exponential spread in the winter.

What about if we never have a cure. At some point you have to return to normal.

1
 Lord_ash2000 23 Sep 2020
In reply to john arran:

> What you're advocating boils down to condemning a great many people to an early grave so that you can go shopping without wearing a mask. To what depths has our society sunk that such an idea is even mooted, let alone actively touted by otherwise right-thinking individuals?

It's a line of thinking that is cropping up more and more. 

this form the BBC yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54255635 

"In the end it will come down to how far the government is prepared to go to contain the virus. How much economic pain and disruption and damage to society and the wider health and wellbeing of individuals is worth the lives at risk?

That, unfortunately, is the horrible dilemma likely to have to be faced. The really tough calls are still to come."

And I seem to recall similar articles in the Guardian and the Telegraph asking the same sorts of questions. I'm just skipping ahead to making those tough calls now. We as a society seem to have gotten used to having our cake and eating it, we've forgotten about times where there is no easy solution, where you pick between X deaths on way or Y deaths another, there isn't always a nice solution where everyone lives happily ever after, sometimes a sacrifice is required.   

Post edited at 12:35
6
 Dave the Rave 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> This. Especially the bit about lockdown = NHS coped. 

Did it?

It may have coped with the numbers but you really need to ask the staff how they’re coping.

Its been a long 6 months for NHS staff and some form of normality is only just returning.

My wife who’s a carer had someone moaning to her about ‘ Ive just returned to work and I’m with the school kids all day now. My husbands got to work now too’ Generally had a great six months off with pay.

1
 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

Well if you think it took 3 months for the national lockdown to take effect then I reckon you have a few more months to go.As long as people follow the rules.

Its not hard to work out that it takes time for it to come down.

 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

You mean those in the UK operate.

There are plenty of other countries where modified behaviour works.We all look at Germany. It really is not difficult.Its just getting there.

Its relatively easy to figure out what you need to do and practise.

1
 skog 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I've said we should let it rip because what we are actually going to do is try and avoid letting it rip and fail because a large enough number of people will refuse to be contained.

Really?!

Well, let's try and avoid letting it rip, and succeed.

We need to rise to the challenge and do what's needed, not roll over and accept disaster!

1
 skog 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> All the arguments that are being made are on the premise that covid is cured next year or that hand washing and wearing a mask alone is enough to prevent exponential spread in the winter.

Except not all the arguments made are on that premise, a useful vaccine is very likely anyway (it doesn't have to be perfect to help a lot), and I don't think anyone's suggesting that hand washing and mask wearing are anything like enough on their own...

 DancingOnRock 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If we let it rip there would be civil war by Christmas as the shops would be out of stock and people off sick would mount up to millions.

1
 Mad Tommy 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

To answer the original question, this is a word-for-word copy'n'paste from an article from the MIT Newsletter that I sign up to.

A grim hypothetical: What happens when a major city allows the coronavirus to rage unchecked? If the Brazilian city of Manaus is any answer, it means about two-thirds of the population could get infected and one person in 500 could die before the epidemic winds down. During May, as the virus spread rapidly in Manaus, dire reports described overwhelmed hospitals and freshly dug graves. But since hitting a peak four months ago, new coronavirus cases and deaths in the city of 1.8 million have undergone a rapid and unexplained decline.

The reason: Now a group of researchers say they know why—so many people got infected that the virus is running out of hosts. Essentially, it’s so called “herd immunity” in action. They tested banked blood for antibodies to the virus and estimated that between 44% and 66% of the population of Manaus has been infected. This is probably the highest prevalence in the world. It’s unclear why the virus spread so quickly in Manaus, where people started social distancing in March, but dense housing, crowding on boats used for local transportation and poor water supplies may have contributed. 

What else can we learn? Other cities should be cautious about drawing conclusions from Manaus since, among other factors, it has a fairly young population. Were two-thirds of the US population to be infected, the virus could easily claim more than 500,000 American lives, mostly among the elderly.

mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

The highest average deaths per day was about mid to end April. Oddly, highest infections was later than this. Probably because few people tested in March and April? Main point is, the measures did not take three months - 4 to 6 weeks at most. So rates in north west should have been coming down a few weeks ago, no surging upwards.

Lockdown light has little impact. If enough of us did follow the rules then it might, but the significant minority who don’t is too big.  I am getting increasingly frustrated by health experts and politicians who seem have a very middle class privileged view on how society works. 

 munkins 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I think we'll have to endure this Winter, hopefully by Spring we'll have a much better grasp of how many people have been infected and how far we are from a vaccine. If 20-30% have been infected then another year should see us close to herd immunity. If 10% have been infected and a vaccine is no closer then the economic damage is too much to continue like this.

 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

I listened to one of the epidimologists who is regularly on the radio. Basically he says it does not take long for it to increase, but getting it down takes far longer.

Does not matter how society works, its the virus that is working on society......

Being fed up does not make the issue or principle go away.

 Jim Hamilton 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> And look at how for example Germans are more disciplined in following rules.

Looking at the latest European Covid figures, can we say the Italians have about the same disciplin as the Germans, both are more more disciplined than the British, but the British are more discplined than the Austrians, Dutch, Danish, French, Spanish.. ?!

Apparently the Argentinians are now ignoring their lockdown rules and the police have stopped trying to enforce them. 

Incidentally just heard the founder of Pret a Manger on the radio ranting about the whole thing, but I don't think he offered any solution.  

mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

Almost a different topic, but how do we modify behaviour since it is clear too many people in the UK do not?  I’d like to think the government would take advice from human behaviourists and sociologists but doubt it. An example I’ve banged on about in here a few times before; the deputy health/scientist person said, back in March, that going to football is fine coz it’s outside. Bollocks: a typical weekend could see 20 matches in the top two leagues , 35,000 fans average each,  most crammed in the concourse boozing man hugging snogging and all sorts. She didn’t have a fekin clue. We know we have a bad attitude to booze. And we know we flick the Vs to authority. 

Post edited at 13:47
 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I was speaking to a Dutch guy yesterday and we were joking about the liberal Dutch and English v the Germans.

An hour earlier I had been speaking to somebody in Aus. If you return from any overseas trip you are quarantined in a hotel for 14 days and you have to pay -ASD 2,500. Gues what alot of peole are not going on holiday overseas to Bali etc.

There is no easy off the shelf solution or trade off.

Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Carnage.

I think if we mask (lower the viral load/reduce spread) and socially distance when we can I think it can stay lowish.

I don't think more strict lockdowns will work, they've lied, been hypocrits and made too much up for people to respect their view now. Basically those who are being sensible will be the ones who lose more freedom and those who weren't will carry on as before anyway.. 

Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

ICU deaths have gone down from around 50% to 75-80% now.

Hospitals are far better at treating it now. Maybe with masks we're getting less viral loads when infected.

At my wife's hospital staff just no longer get it, back in March everyone was getting it. They had a heart attack patient in March and they rushed in and did the CPR, almost everyone at the scene got covid. Now it's much more secure.

Alyson30 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> So it seems we are in for another 6 months of restrictions.  Im not going to list the implications of this but a few are: closed hospitality over Xmas will be a disaster for many businesses, retailers will suffer as we dont go and buy that new shirt/frock for the party, spectator sports wont have gate/pie/booze receipts for months etc etc.  There is also the grassroots sport which will effect our kids/health/mental health etc.  There is a massive knock-on for all other industries...

> I genuinely feel pretty grim about everything now (I also suffer from SAD and hate the closing-in nights and impending crappy weather and cold) and just want normality whilst of course I will continue to be a good citizen and follow all rules to the letter.

> If we just let, as Boris said last night, the virus rip through the population, what would be the actual and non hyperbolic outcome?  Hospitals dealt with the disease well last time and we now have pent up capacity waiting to be used plus the additional ventilators and drugs which are known to reduce symptoms in the most serious cases. Are there any people who actually think we should remove all restrictions and what would any government think would be acceptable collateral damage (in the form of deaths)?  1, 2 200, 25000? 

”Letting it rip” just isn’t realistic for the simple reason that the health system would completely collapse.

Yes it coped well last time but that is simply because we did have a full lockdown.

You can say have no restrictions but if you do that then thanks to exponential growth most of the population gets sick at roughly the same time, and you’d have 1000s of people dying outside, in the cold, in front of hospitals so overrun you’d probably need the army to intervene.

That is always the same problem, we can’t cope with exponential growth so we have to curtail it.

That is the shit shandwich we are being given i’m afraid.

1
 Neil Williams 23 Sep 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If we did nothing the number of deaths would keep rising every week until we got scared enough to do something.   The longer we let it run the more infection there would be in the community and the longer and/or harder we would need to lock down to get it back into control.

That assumes no natural immunity, i.e. everyone will be reinfected.  This doesn't seem to be the case, though it's in question as to how long the immunity lasts; reinfections have been found but not many of them.

Thus, I would say with no measures you would in fact get a set of separate peaks and troughs.  The "wavelength" would depend on the duration of natural immunity.

Post edited at 13:55
 Neil Williams 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> You can say have no restrictions but if you do that then thanks to exponential growth most of the population gets sick at roughly the same time, and you’d have 1000s of people dying outside, in the cold, in front of hospitals so overrun you’d probably need the army to intervene.

Though you have got the "middle ground" - suppress it to say 80% of NHS capacity, but not to zero.

Alyson30 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> That assumes no natural immunity, i.e. everyone will be reinfected.  

 

No, it doesn’t assume that, what he says is valid for a first wave, which has barely started so far - or rather, was stopped in its track - and is now restarting.

At best 8% if the population had it so we basically still have no herd immunity.

Post edited at 14:00
1
Alyson30 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Though you have got the "middle ground" - suppress it to say 80% of NHS capacity, but not to zero.

That is basically what we have been attempting to do. Unfortunately just « flattening the curve » in itself demands quite big behaviour changes.

Post edited at 14:03
1
Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

We don't understand long haulers and if those who get 're-infected' ever cleared it. The n values for re-infections are so low it's hard to know much about them. We have sequence data from some but others could also be false positives. We're at a test positivity rate of less than 1% so false positives will start to be an issue (I'm not going as far to say that these are the actual reasons for the latest surge in cases).

We really don't understand why some people clear it and have no lasting effects yet health strong fit people can suffer for months with low level impacts or even more serious consequences.

There's talk about doing more quantitative tests and less PCR so we start to quantify the viral load people have in much greater numbers. PCR is almost too sensitive because it amplifies up the material which is there.

Post edited at 14:13
mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Replying to both your posts.

Lots of people have done the right thing and gone over and above the call of duty. 
One of the things I find difficult is: not getting dragged into blaming the spreaders: young people now, south Asian communities a while back. It’s what this b’starding government wants, divide and rule. I see rule breaking all the time, but it’s roots often lie in structural inequalities or people simply not understanding the impacts of their behaviour (coz our government appears unable to get this across to key groups of people). Still wished they’d wear a blooming mask tho!!

1
Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

Honestly, if I was 21 and at college now I'd hate to think what I'd be doing.. I think we should do more to provide outside drinking venues. We aren't going to stop people drinking but maybe we can just reduce the super spreading events.

I remember being in the US in 2009 when the swine flu pandemic was here and someone questioning me about the wisdom of going out to a bar drinking one night. Obviously that was far less dangerous but it never even figured as a reason not to go out for a beer..

Post edited at 14:28
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Mad Tommy:

Interesting post.  I agree with the note of caution on drawing conclusions for the US/UK from a young population city in Brazil, but there is one I would like to draw...

> They tested banked blood for antibodies to the virus and estimated that between 44% and 66% of the population of Manaus has been infected [...] Other cities should be cautious about drawing conclusions from Manaus since, among other factors

Some people keep pushing the line that immunity is present in many times more people than seroprevalence testing identifies and that we probably have herd immunity already in the UK or are close to it.

The data behind your newsletter would put a hard limit on that factor of (immune)/(seroprevalant) of 2x (by taking the estimate of seroprevalence as 50%, and no more than 100% of people can possibly have been infected and developed some other immunity).   Applying that factor of 2x to the 8% seroprevalence seen in the UK, and we can very tentatively conclude that an absolute upper bound of the population to have been infected and developed some other immunity but not necessarily seroprevalant antibodies  is 16%.

Not the this is a great surprise, when you look at how a recent superspreader outbreak or a meat packing outbreak develops - that is with no sign of herd immunity, but it's another piece of data pointing in that direction.

Post edited at 14:50
gezebo 23 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It’s an interesting question. With evidence that the virus has mutated in some instances already I’m not sure we should be pinning our hopes on a vaccine to much. What is the impact of a year of isolation for some at risk groups and a year of reduced healthcare for many others, 6 months of little/no education for children along with limited social interaction for many of them. 
 

Its all very well saying work from home for office workers but what about the ‘doers’ who make the supermarket work for everyone, the food producers and all the other important yet hands on industries. Should we all get Covid bonuses for turning up? 
 

I may live until I’m 70 or I may not, either way I’d much rather take my chances and not miss a whole year of my life. 

3
Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to gezebo:

> It’s an interesting question. With evidence that the virus has mutated in some instances already I’m not sure we should be pinning our hopes on a vaccine to much.

It really hasn't. It's an incredibly stable genome. This paper just came out: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/38/23652 

(Abstract key line: Our results suggest that, to date, the limited diversity seen in SARS-CoV-2 should not preclude a single vaccine from providing global protection.)

A vaccine will almost certainly work, the question is to what efficacy, but even 50% efficacy will be awesome, and then a few years later maybe 80% etc etc.

We've just had the 4th vaccine hit phase 3 in the US.

Post edited at 14:38
 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Are you living in fear, isolation and poverty? 

I'm not. 

I just wear a mask at work and in the supermarket. 

I think I can live with that, why can't you? 

7
Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

The lack of antibodies also doesn't mean we don't have immunity.

Here is a good summary:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00436-4

Post edited at 14:43
 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

I think you might be surprised that less and less younger people drink in the quanitites that you probably did.Its viewed as a bit old hat by alot of younger peole. Does not means to say that ypoung people do not drink, but the numbers who do are declining.

1
Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

Bloody youth of today..

mattmurphy 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Ah but you have a job.

What about the millions that will lose there’s due to the restrictions?

If your own job was one the line I would imagine you’d be singing a different tune.

4
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> The lack of antibodies also doesn't mean we don't have immunity.

Indeed; sorry that was implied in my post with the people claiming there is more widespread immunity than the seroprevalence suggests.  I am aware of this in general terms (t-cell immunity).  My point is that with can use a population going from 0% seroprevalence to 50% seroprevalence to put some bounds on this process.

If 50% of people went from no seroprevalence to seroprevalence during the infection, it means that at least 50% of people became infected.  Perhaps the other 50% were already immune, or perhaps they developed T-cell immunity but not antibodies.  We don't know about that second 50%, but we can infer that the first 50% were susceptible and went on to be infected.  As more people getting infected can't possibly send that number down, we can assume 50% develop antibodies as a hard lower bound for population wide infection.

In the UK, 8% of people developed seroprevalence through becoming infected, so we can figure that no more than 16% of people have been infected, and that 42% of the people at absolute minimum are still susceptible.  Which is not good, and it's a minimum bound.

Post edited at 15:03
 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

The Italians appear to have modified their behaviour in the North.

It just takes time and lessons.

Also as I said before , maybe listening to women who are far more risk aware in my experience.Macho virus man is out of date.

Some people have a bad attitude to booze. Gym culture in working class men suggests booze is not the thing it once was.

 GrahamD 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Just letting a virus 'rip through the population' isn't just stupid in terms of headline deaths, NHS overload.  It basically puts any front line worker (shops, petrol stations, health carers) in the firing line and, even if it doesn't kill them, many people will be ill all at the same time.  Not many shops are going to do very well with 80% of its staff off ill, even if for only 2 weeks.

 Flinticus 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> I think the point I was making follows on from my earlier point that we might not have an effective vaccine by next year or potentially ever.

> All the arguments that are being made are on the premise that covid is cured next year or that hand washing and wearing a mask alone is enough to prevent exponential spread in the winter.

> What about if we never have a cure. At some point you have to return to normal.

That's really poor premise. We're 9 months into this and we have over 150 teams looking to produce a vaccine with 9 in phase 3 already, far faster than usual. This is getting money and 'brains' thrown at it as its costing economies huge amounts, not to mention the ill and dead. 

From my readings, most researchers are confident that there will be several operable vaccines that will probably be used in conjunction. 

Now is not the time to be acting on a fear that no vaccine will be available. 

 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> If your own job was one the line I would imagine you’d be singing a different tune.

The tune I would be singing would be for gvt support to keep my sector from going bust, or to help adapt, or to retrain. 

If I was singing the tune of "lift the restrictions so I don't lose my job" I would be misguided, since lifting the restrictions would lead in a couple of months to a return to lockdown. That's worse for the economy than current restrictions by a mile. 

Allowing everyone to get covid isn't going to save jobs! If it was, the gvt would do it, they don't give a f*ck about old people. 

2
 timjones 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Imagine how onerous that might feel if you could NEVER see them again, rather than for 6 more months or until, hopefully, a anti-virus is produced.

> Then imagine how it might feel if it was you who brought the virus to them.

Speaking from bitter experience a common cold that you don't even know that you have until it's too late can lead to the same regrettable result.

Maybe you should stop trying to guilt trip people into thinking just like you?

6
 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> What about if we never have a cure. At some point you have to return to normal.

Depends what you mean by normal, not wearing masks, not washing our hands, not distancing when we can. All easily managed but not normal.

The longer we delay the return to our previous lives the more we'll know about the virus and if not defeat it, learn to lessen it's consequences.

Not six months ago if you caught it you had a 50% chance of surviving, it's much better than that now. Who knows what we'll learn in the next six months?

2
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

> Now is not the time to be acting on a fear that no vaccine will be available. 

And if that time comes, it would not be appropriate to paint the only two choices as "endless lockdown" and "let it rip".  

I've got a counter-proposal; turn old quarries into sealed holiday venues where anyone supporting the "lit it rip" and "be like Sweden" plans can go for 4-week long party/vacations paid at state expense.  They all go in, the doors are shut and 4 weeks later they can come out.  Well, those that live.  Basically the same experience they're proposing for the vulnerable now so that they can have more freedom.  This might get them to take more notice of the viral load issues regularly ignored in advocating this approach since at least February.  If I turn out to be an over-cautions know-nothing ninny, great - 4 weeks paid vacation and we're a lot closer to herd immunity.  We could employ the holiday industry to run the camps, gives them something to do, and I'm sure there's no shortage of builders looking for work right now.

3
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If I was singing the tune of "lift the restrictions so I don't lose my job" I would be misguided, since lifting the restrictions would lead in a couple of months to a return to lockdown. That's worse for the economy than current restrictions by a mile. 

This, 50 times over.

> Allowing everyone to get covid isn't going to save jobs! If it was, the gvt would do it, they don't give a f*ck about old people. 

Quite - if this was really a viable solution I don't think for a moment that the soft human aspect would stand in the way of our current cabinet.

1
 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to timjones:

> Speaking from bitter experience a common cold that you don't even know that you have until it's too late can lead to the same regrettable result.

> Maybe you should stop trying to guilt trip people into thinking just like you?


Maybe, people haven't thought of those consequences, did you stop to think that?

I wasn't quilt tripping anyone, and if you've had the experience, then perhaps it's even more important to let people know, since there are some people who think :

  1. The virus doesn't exist.
  2. It's hard to pass on
  3. You'd know if you had it
  4. It only affects old people

Covid isn't like a cold or flu, you can carry it around without any symptoms for 14 days and be spreading it to everyone you meet.

3
 Neil Williams 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> That is basically what we have been attempting to do. Unfortunately just « flattening the curve » in itself demands quite big behaviour changes.

It's not.  What we've been trying to do is to suppress to quite low levels - far lower than required to keep NHS capacity to 80% - pending a vaccine.  The hammer and the dance, basically.  Though we weren't very good at dancing.

 Neil Williams 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> Honestly, if I was 21 and at college now I'd hate to think what I'd be doing.. I think we should do more to provide outside drinking venues. We aren't going to stop people drinking but maybe we can just reduce the super spreading events.

I think this should have been the "great British outdoor summer" - no indoor hospitality, but venues guaranteed the right to operate outdoors, closing roads as required.  We've missed that one now sadly.

mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

I've been surprised at the lack of innovation in some sectors:  we have small cafes and micro pubs where I live facing closure due to small size, yet next door is a church with numerous massive, unused rooms.  Wedding marques unused and companies going bust.  Get 'em popped up.  And 'yes' to outside.

mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

'50% chance of surviving'

Big exaggeration,: think it was if you caught it and if you ended up in hospital and if you ended up in ICU; it was 50%.

But will let you off coz I agree with your post.

 Neil Williams 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

Yes, 50% was at the point of ventilation.  With a few treatments now available (and more in process) the number getting here will reduce.

 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> There's talk about doing more quantitative tests and less PCR so we start to quantify the viral load people have in much greater numbers. PCR is almost too sensitive because it amplifies up the material which is there.

My understanding was that a lot of the stuff running in the UK is qPCR which does give a good indiction of the initial load through monitoring the rise in an associated florescence vs each thermocycle.  My more limited understanding is that whilst this information is there, it's beyond the management's ability to standardise it usefully across the labs.

Someone I know is involved in the tracing in NZ where they sequence every single detection to help understand the origin of apparently sporadic cases - a different world https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/2020/09/23/using-genetic-fingerprints-in-our-covid-...

Oxford Nanopore are pushing their system as a "better" test but their key claim is around turnaround time, and as I understand it the nanopore is reliant on amplified DNA from a PCR so I don't see why it would be faster - and anyhow most of the delays are not from the actual testing gear.  

mick taylor 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> I wasn't quilt tripping anyone,

My wife quilt tripped me doing some dodgey bedtime shananigans and I smacked my head on a four poster bed - true*

* i'm lying

In reply to Dave the Rave:

> Did it?

> It may have coped with the numbers but you really need to ask the staff how they’re coping.

> Its been a long 6 months for NHS staff and some form of normality is only just returning.

> My wife who’s a carer had someone moaning to her about ‘ Ive just returned to work and I’m with the school kids all day now. My husbands got to work now too’ Generally had a great six months off with pay.

I think we're on the same page Dave. My wife's a senior physio in a head injury unit (plus respiratory) so yes, the NHS coped as in didn't fail, but yes there is a human cost being paid for by those within the system.

My 'coped' was to head off the OP's assertion that there wasn't a problem when they seemed to be wilfully forgetting the lockdown bit of the equation.

Hope your missus isn't getting too much crap. 

 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> '50% chance of surviving'

> Big exaggeration,: think it was if you caught it and if you ended up in hospital and if you ended up in ICU; it was 50%.

> But will let you off coz I agree with your post.


That is what I meant, cheers; typing too fast obviously.

But after saying that, many fewer people are getting to the point of needing ICU and intubating, because we know much more about treating the virus and lessening it's impact.

 Neil Williams 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

This will be one to watch in terms of how the ventilation and death rates compare with the hospitalisation rate now vs. in March.

 The New NickB 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

I would disagree. Whilst the case numbers are high in the areas with with additional restrictions, the increases are at a rate significantly lower than the national average.

Nationally cases are doubling every 7 or 8 days, within Greater Manchester it seems to be much slower. In Oldham the weekly increase is +21%, in Rochdale it is +48%. Wigan which is exempt from the GM restrictions had infections increase by 122%.

 The New NickB 23 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

I have crunched the numbers for all of the Greater Manchester authorities based on the latest numbers that I can find for weekly increases, these are percentage increase.

Wigan (national restrictions only) + 122%.

Manchester (GM restrictions) + 92%.

Bury (GM restrictions) + 83%.

Trafford (GM restrictions) + 62%.

Salford (GM restrictions) + 53%.

Rochdale (GM restrictions) + 48%.

Stockport (GM restrictions) + 45%.

Oldham (GM restrictions +) + 22%.

Tameside (GM restrictions) + 12%.

Bolton (GM restrictions ++) + 7%.

It is probably worth noting that the rate per 100,000 is now lower in Stockport than it is in Wigan.

Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think this should have been the "great British outdoor summer" - no indoor hospitality, but venues guaranteed the right to operate outdoors, closing roads as required.  We've missed that one now sadly.

We did the same in the US. It's incredible, with the US weather in the summer, how we aren't in better shape. That's why I'm worried now, we're at 40,000 new cases a day after a summer and just entering the fall. It'd going to go up a lot here now.

Marquees went up everywhere, we have 3 massive ones at school for teaching, but incredibly many of the ones at pubs closed all the sides. Kind of destroyed the point of using them.

Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yeah that's (ICU survival rate) nearer 75-80% now. There's a good report somewhere on UK ICU survival rates between April and after July. I can't find it now but in all age groups it has improved quite considerably.

Post edited at 17:11
 neilh 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

I see there are delays in delivery  ofnew testing machines. Did you ever figure out the lead times on them?

 mik82 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The problem with the short sharp shock approach is that this also means sacrificing a lot of other people with potentially treatable medical conditions.  By slowing things down, you can at least retain a semblance of a health service.  

You'll also sacrifice a lot of younger people to medium-long term disability - conservative estimates already of 200k with persistent symptoms months after infection, so you'd be looking at close to 2 million if we allowed it to "let rip"

 Dave the Rave 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Cheers. Wasn’t having a go at you, just trying to nip in the bud that ‘ the health service coped’ crap’

 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I've said we should let it rip because what we are actually going to do is try and avoid letting it rip and fail because a large enough number of people will refuse to be contained. Meaning we'll just have a far more drawn out and costly version of the spread that'll ultimately kill a similar number of people but cost us all a lot more in the process.

At some point, you're going to have to realise that the world's epidemiologists, economists and leaders know more about this than you. They say that flattening the curve is the best strategy not just for saving lives, but for minimising the impact of the virus. You are totally deluded if you can continue to believe that a "short sharp shock" will be less costly. 

Nobody who knows what they're talking about thinks this is true.

You are on the side of the idiots. It's not too late to jump ship!

3
 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Very little would happen if we dropped restrictions now and got back to normal.  The virus is pretty much done now in the UK but the government and media propaganda machine is still hard at work trying to convince us otherwise.  Wonder why?

So much uninformed rubbish being trotted out on this thread I don’t really know where to start. Perhaps this might open some eyes to the self inflicted damage we are currently doing to our society not because of Covid, but because of our gross over-reaction to Covid:

youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac&

17
 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Very little would happen if we dropped restrictions now and got back to normal.  The virus is pretty much done now in the UK but the government and media propaganda machine is still hard at work trying to convince us otherwise.  Wonder why?

> So much uninformed rubbish being trotted out on this thread I don’t really know where to start.

Are you trying to prove your own point?

 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

Oh look - a brand new account, with no history, posting anti-lockdown bullshit.  I was already having bad deja vu to early March but now it’s complete.

How about you come out and tell us which regular poster you really are before your sock puppet account gets banned?

 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

OK, first point he's got wrong: the curve for covid-19 deaths is extremely likely to be influenced by the policy response which is absent from flu. The idea that the virus "burnt itself out" in May is nonsense - how could that fit with the latest data?

I'll watch as much as I can, but once all credibility is lost, I'll stop.

Why has he totalled all of Europe? 

"Sweden had no lockdown and no masks" - just bollocks! They've had voluntary lockdown! Oh look, a sparsely populated country with very little deprivation and good services hasn't suffered enormously in excess deaths - so there isn't a pandemic! This is utter garbage.

Why would deaths go up immediately after pubs open? They'd go up a couple of months later after the virus has been transmitted between people in the pubs, then the vulnerable catch it off them, then they get sick. Why has he not considered this lag? Because this is utter garbage.

"The curves continue to go down". You can't get any more wrong than that. He's been proven completely wrong. 

He keeps comparing policy interventions to R measured by deaths. Deaths lag the effects of the policies by a couple a month or more - once the deaths change, we have no idea whether it's about an intervention like masks, that's lost in the mix. We can't draw the conclusion "masks work" nor "masks don't work" from the deaths data.

I've got to 22 minutes and all credibility has been lost. His argument is "there is no second wave in Europe, the pandemic is over". The data have killed his argument. It is dead. Stop believing it. It has been proven wrong.

Your view is not valid, the data are in, and you are wrong. Your beliefs are false. Update them.

Post edited at 22:32
 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

So not even had time to watch the video before passing judgement then? Can lead a horse to water and all that!

10
 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

You need to watch the full video before passing judgement.

11
 john arran 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

If somebody or something proves themselves to be full of sh1t after a decent period of patient viewing, why on earth would anyone need to subject themselves to more of the same before passing judgement?

And who are you? And what is your personal motive for pushing this contrary line?

 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Oh look - a brand new account, with no history, posting anti-lockdown bullshit.  I was already having bad deja vu to early March but now it’s complete.

> How about you come out and tell us which regular poster you really are before your sock puppet account gets banned?

Why does someone with a different opinion to you have to be a sock puppet? Is it just An attempt to try and stifle others you don’t agree with? Perhaps instead you could watch the video and offer your opinion as to why this respected scientist is wrong. I await a reasoned argument in return. 

11
 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

All opinions are not equally valid. We are discussing science, someone is right and someone is wrong. 

Sorry, you and Ivor are wrong.

 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Why does someone with a different opinion to you have to be a sock puppet?  

Because you literally just created your account today apparently for the sole purpose of posting anti-lockdown propaganda which makes your actions close to incitement to murder in my opinion.  This bullshit was out of order in March and nothing has changed since.

> Is it just An attempt to try and stifle others you don’t agree with?

How does stating my opinion stifle yours?   It does not.  The reader is free to make their own judgement.  I have not prevented you from saying or doing anything.  

> Perhaps instead you could watch the video and offer your opinion as to why this respected scientist is wrong. I await a reasoned argument in return. 

 I have - excessively - given my opinion and my reasons for reaching it on dozens of UKC threads.  It’s based on assimilating hundreds of pieces of evidence to the best of my limited abilities.  One YouTube video isn’t going to change that.  Much of what I have said is still out there for you and others to read.  I’m not going to repeat myself here. 

Your opinion is worth less of my time than the last dog shit I trod in.   

Post edited at 22:30
 bouldery bits 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Why does someone with a different opinion to you have to be a sock puppet? Is it just An attempt to try and stifle others you don’t agree with? Perhaps instead you could watch the video and offer your opinion as to why this respected scientist is wrong. I await a reasoned argument in return. 

You into Trad or Sport, Tom?

Are you a 5.10 or a La Sportiva guy?

What grade is Three Pebble Slab?

 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to john arran:

Hi John, no his arguments are all backed up by actual data. There is no data that says lockdown worked to save lives. Neil Ferguson’s model was widely wrong. Covid is not even in the top 10 causes of death for the UK in 2020.

In the meantime deaths are very few so we focus on cases, despite the term being wildly mis-used:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/04/covid-why-terminology-really-matte...

10
 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Sorry, you and Ivor are wrong.

That may be the case but you just saying I am wrong does not sound very convincing to anyone. Can you back up your assumption with reasoning and evidence?

9
Roadrunner6 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

In the US it's the third leading cause of death. 

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200818/covid-the-third-leading-cause-of-d... 

For the year it's likely to be in the top 5 in the UK. 

It was only in August it wasn't in the top 10 as I understand it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8747175/Covid-19-24th-common-cause...

This has deaths for all of 2019 and how many deaths we've had from COVID so far in 2020.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/deaths-covid-19

Post edited at 22:49
 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> That may be the case but you just saying I am wrong does not sound very convincing to anyone. Can you back up your assumption with reasoning and evidence?

Of course I can. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/

Fill yer boots.

The best explanation for this data is that lockdown and summer brought down cases and they are now going up as people mix more (schools, universities, pubs). The deaths are low because oldies are aware of the virus and being careful. However, once it's everywhere it's going to become impossible to shield the vulnerable so hospital admissions and deaths will rise. This is what we're going to see. I'll bet you £500 if you like that the pandemic (deaths) is not over by any reasonable definition - we are about to see deaths go up in the UK.

My view is that the current restrictions will have little impact beyond common sense Sweden-style (let's call that "voluntary lockdown" rather than "no lockdown" shall we?). But my hope is that the vulnerable and their contacts will be careful enough not to all catch it at once and overwhelm the NHS. I'm not holding my breath though, and I expect restrictions to get harsher as we see hospital admissions rise, but I don't think another full lockdown is appropriate. It won't surprise me though if all hospitality, gyms etc are shut though. I'm fairly hopeful of a vaccine which will get us out so we're not trapped in the cycle forever (herd immunity just isn't going to happen - look at the chaos when only 8% are infected).

Edit: Herd immunity? Pandemic over? And our survey said...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/con...

WA-WAH

Post edited at 23:01
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

By the way, a different UKC member posted the same video link last week.  You seem to have a lot in common.  You could drop them a PM.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/is_this_the_covid_equivalent_of...

 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Your opinion is worth less of my time than the last dog shit I trod in. 

Classy!

Still, perhaps if you don’t like my opinion you can argue with a large group of Belgian doctors: 

https://www.aier.org/article/open-letter-from-medical-doctors-and-health-pr...
 

9
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

No, I’d rather clean the dog shit off my footwear and refer you to my voluminous UKC posts that have done this to death, rather than read a very few cherry picked links from a bloody obvious sock puppet account if it’s all the same to you.

If you are to chicken to post from your normal account, I can’t be arsed to be classy.

Post edited at 22:52
 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sorry those links to cases, (sorry infections), you posted don’t even consider the hidden 300,000 or so daily infections not recorded in March/April. The IFR is well known now to be somewhere between 0.3 and 0.1%. Very similar to seasonal flu. If we had 1,000 deaths a day back in April, then with an IFR of 0.3% then that would require 300,000 to have been infected each and every day. Yet our recorded infection figures for March are only around 5,000 or so daily because only the illest in hospital were tested. These were all actual cases. Now we are testing 200,000 plus a day and finding 5,000 infections. Yet most with no symptoms. And still almost no deaths. You have heard of false positives and our overly sensitive 40 cycle tests haven’t you? Most of what we are seeing now in the case (sorry infection) data is remnants of old infections.

8
 bouldery bits 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

I'm beginning to suspect that, perhaps, you don't even like climbing?

 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> No, I’d rather clean the dog shit off my footwear and refer you to my voluminous UKC posts that have done this to death, rather than read a very few cherry picked links from a bloody obvious sock puppet account if it’s all the same to you.

> If you are to chicken to post from your normal account, I can’t be arsed to be classy.

Sorry this is my only account, a UKC lurker for a while but the absolute rubbish being spouted on this thread made me register.
 

Thanks again for your kind words but the fact you can’t provide a reasoned argument against the links I’ve posted suggests firstly that you haven’t read them, and secondly that you don’t have a valid argument to put forward in return. I’m sorry if this isn’t the case but I’m only saying what I see.

Perhaps you could give your views on the Belgian doctors letters and cases v’s infection data links for starters? Like I said, if I’m wrong it would be good to know why?

9
 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I'm beginning to suspect that, perhaps, you don't even like climbing?

Another wrong assumption I’m afraid. I’ve been climbing and hill walking for over 30 years thank you.

4
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Sorry this is my only account, a UKC lurker for a while but the absolute rubbish being spouted on this thread made me register.

I don’t believe you.

> Thanks again for your kind words but the fact you can’t provide a reasoned argument against the links I’ve posted 

Please don’t confuse “can’t” with “won’t”.  I have provided such counter arguments many, many times.  I am not going to get drawn in to arguing with a pidgin.  That’s your MO.  That’s how you try to create legitimacy around lunatic fringe crap from people like Malcolm Kendrick.  My posts are all over UKC; you will find the answers you seek from me through my profile - which has existed for something like a decade and has many posts from me on many subjects.

I think almost every “fact” you give in your 22:03 post is wrong. I won’t get in to it here, but I have done in many other UKC posts.

 Jon Stewart 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Sorry those links to cases, (sorry infections), you posted don’t even consider the hidden 300,000 or so daily infections not recorded in March/April. The IFR is well known now to be somewhere between 0.3 and 0.1%. Very similar to seasonal flu. If we had 1,000 deaths a day back in April, then with an IFR of 0.3% then that would require 300,000 to have been infected each and every day. Yet our recorded infection figures for March are only around 5,000 or so daily because only the illest in hospital were tested. These were all actual cases. Now we are testing 200,000 plus a day and finding 5,000 infections. Yet most with no symptoms. And still almost no deaths. You have heard of false positives and our overly sensitive 40 cycle tests haven’t you? Most of what we are seeing now in the case (sorry infection) data is remnants of old infections.

Yes, cases would have been much higher than recorded back in March. 

What are you saying is caused by false positives? What do you think think the sensitivity and specificity of the tests are, and how should this be corrected? 

Are you up for that £500 bet? 

 bouldery bits 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Another wrong assumption I’m afraid. I’ve been climbing and hill walking for over 30 years thank you.

Not an assumption.

A suspicion.

You must be very tired having done that for so long. I usually do a few hours at the weekend or maybe a nice evening if I can get away with it. 

 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Hmmm, I suppose you think that this guy is a ‘crank’ as you put it too? 

youtube.com/watch?v=Su0wMysBYPM&

Any easy way to try and win an argument is not to reply with reasoned debate but simply to attempt to label those you don’t agree with as lunatics or fringe etc. Such a shame!

4
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

You should turn over to page 2 of the alt-right guide to pushing their dogma.  We’re bored of page 1. 

I repeat that my counter points exist in a great many posts I have made.  I see no benefit to repeating them here.  

 Thomas John 23 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Sorry not alt-right, just a normal member of the climbing community who’s concerned that our chosen cure is far worse than the disease. Your refusal to engage with my valid points made speaks volumes. You say you can’t be bothered to reply yet it is very strange that you’ve replied many times in an attempt to personally discredit me, all the time replying before you can have even had had a chance to watch, read and digest the counter arguments in the many links I have posted. Hence your replies seem purely knee-jerk and lack any credible substance. A bit like our Government's response to this virus.

5
 wintertree 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Your refusal to engage with my valid points made speaks volumes

I have engaged with the same points dozens of times over since March.  The posts (excepting some blinders in The Pub) are on my profile.  

> You say you can’t be bothered to reply yet it is very strange that you’ve replied many times in an attempt to personally discredit me, 

No - I say that I will not address your points as they’re a crock of shit from fringe lunatics and I’ve addressed their content their dozens of times over already.  Their is nothing to be gained by repeating myself there.  I’ve no problem replying, I’m just not going to waste my effort on the pathetic misrepresentations of the situation you have posted.

I can’t personally discredit you - you have a brand new profile with no history, there is no thing and no one to discredit.  I’m perfectly happy to call you out until the cows come home.  Brand new account, same tired old YouTube conspiracy videos and Malcom Kendrick links, same attempt to create the view that all opinions are equal.

> Hence your replies seem purely knee-jerk and lack any credible substance

That’s just like your opinion, man.  You’ll find no shortage of arguments put forwards by me In other threads by clicking through profile, which is a real thing that’s been on this site for 13 year not 1.3 hours.  You’ll find a lot of links to evidence in the arguments I put forwards.

Like I said, it’s time you turned to page 2.

 The New NickB 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

It certainly isn't well known that the IFR is 0.3-0.1, most studies suggest it is 0.5-1. Flu is 0.1.

Its a lot higher in the vulnerable groups that the virus ripped through in April and May.

You either don't understand what you are posting or you are not applying any critical thought to what you are posting, either it's garbage.

Post edited at 23:56
 Cobra_Head 23 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Why would deaths go up immediately after pubs open? They'd go up a couple of months later after the virus has been transmitted between people in the pubs, then the vulnerable catch it off them, then they get sick. Why has he not considered this lag? Because this is utter garbage.

also we've become better at preventing deaths, there are still other issues, it's not death or go back to as you previously were.

Basing your response only on deaths is bad science.

> "The curves continue to go down". You can't get any more wrong than that. He's been proven completely wrong. 

Exactly video was made 8th Sept. three weeks later and it all bullshit!

> Your view is not valid, the data are in, and you are wrong. Your beliefs are false. Update them.

This ^^

 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> also we've become better at preventing deaths, there are still other issues, it's not death or go back to as you previously were.

It is for the vast majority. All serious viruses can have complications but we don’t destroy our economy or health service for them.

> Basing your response only on deaths is bad science.

Hospital admissions and deaths are the only reliable metric. Test stats are open to too much inaccuracy. Oh and there’s the huge false positive issue, and the sensitivity problems. UK been testing in a 40 cycle range whereas Germany is 30 cycle. Why else do you think their recorded deaths and cases are lower?

> Exactly video was made 8th Sept. three weeks later and it all bullshit!

Here’s an updated video made just last week where he answers his critics:

youtube.com/watch?v=eKKIr425b40&

Post edited at 00:02
6
 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> It certainly isn't well known that the IFR is 0.3-0.1, most studies suggest it is 0.5-1. Flu is 0.1.

> Its a lot higher in the vulnerable groups that the virus ripped through in April and May.

> You either don't understand what you are posting or you are not applying any critical thought to what you are posting, either it's garbage.

There is a HUGE difference between died ‘of’ Covid and died ‘with’ Covid. Yet all are listed as Covid deaths on the Government data.

7
 Greenbanks 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

Bot????

 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Bot????

Haha yes that must be it

3
 elsewhere 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> There is a HUGE difference between died ‘of’ Covid and died ‘with’ Covid. Yet all are listed as Covid deaths on the Government data.

So what? Look at the excess deaths graph to conclude that there was a growing cause of death not seen in previous years that fell a couple of weeks after the 23rd March lockdown.

 Lord_ash2000 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm sure they do know a lot more than me yes.

When I'm saying let rip I mean within the healthy population and try and keep the old isolated then you get the best of both worlds, the vulnerable have lockdown, while the majority of the workforce carry on more or less as normal.

Regarding flattering the curve, I'd have been all for that approach. Only we didn't flatten the curve, we nose dived it and tried to go back to normal. And now, suprise suprise its shooting back up again and it'll be a rinse and repeat over and over until/if we get a vaccine with that strategy.

If we really wanted a flat curve we'd have allowed hospital rates to rise to or near extended capacity then flattened it out by bringing in moderate restrictions then held infection rates at a high but manageable level until herd immunity took effect and infections die down permanently. If we'd have done that we would have probably best it by now. 

Instead we are practically back at square one having caused economic destruction with nothing to show for it.

6
 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> So what? Look at the excess deaths graph to conclude that there was a growing cause of death not seen in previous years that fell a couple of weeks after the 23rd March lockdown.

Yes I agree, some of those will be because of Covid, a significant proportion won’t be. Our obsession with Covid and a second wave that may never come is delaying vital cancer treatment for example. It is predicted that 30,000 unnecessary cancer deaths will be attributed to these delays in the coming year or two. 
 

Regardless, excess deaths are now right down to normal, slightly below normal actually. Almost no Covid deaths to speak of but we do continue to have 450 daily deaths from cancer. Yet we continue to delay cancer screening, testing and treatment with this daft Covid charade to appease the fearful. Meanwhile our economy that supports our NHS gets flushed ever more down the pan. People need to wake up, man up, get a grip and put things into perspective here!

6
 The New NickB 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> There is a HUGE difference between died ‘of’ Covid and died ‘with’ Covid. Yet all are listed as Covid deaths on the Government data.

What do you think those excess deaths are then?

 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Regarding flattering the curve, I'd have been all for that approach. Only we didn't flatten the curve, we nose dived it and tried to go back to normal. And now, suprise suprise its shooting back up again and it'll be a rinse and repeat over and over until/if we get a vaccine with that strategy.

It is not shooting back up. Positive tests are increasing, some of which can be explained with false positives and sensitivity but regardless, the numbers are tiny compared to April, approx 2% of April’s total taking into account the hidden cases back then due to very limited testing.  

Anyway the government promised we needed to flatten the curve to take pressure off the NHS. We did that, or the virus did that, but now the scope has been changed to one of removing all trace of the virus despite all cost to anything else. Utter madness!!!

> If we really wanted a flat curve we'd have allowed hospital rates to rise to or near extended capacity then flattened it out by bringing in moderate restrictions then held infection rates at a high but manageable level until herd immunity took effect and infections die down permanently. If we'd have done that we would have probably best it by now. 

The curve flattened by itself just as it has done in countries without lockdown. This is the natural cycle of any virus including the last two significant Coronaviruses. They had no significant second wave. Lockdown achieved very little apart from destroying our economy and the futures for our young people. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can control this thing like King Canute. A virus does what a virus does.

> Instead we are practically back at square one having caused economic destruction with nothing to show for it

No we have built up significant immunity here in the UK already to add to the 50-80% natural immunity already present.

11
 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> What do you think those excess deaths are then?

I don’t know exactly, do you? Regardless does it matter? We have 180,000 heart disease deaths in the UK each and every year, often preventable, yet we seem to do very little about it. A few thousand excess Coronavirus deaths, mostly amongst people who’d have died very soon anyway and we double our national debt, cancel cancer treatment, shaft our children’s education and employment prospects, give up our basic human rights and freedoms, have our government dispense with the need for parliamentary scrutiny and totally ‘F’ our entire economy?

Yet some on here believe that it is proportional, you know because you can’t catch heart disease from someone else or give it to Granny or some such guff?

Post edited at 00:55
10
 The New NickB 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> It is not shooting back up. Positive tests are increasing, some of which can be explained with false positives and sensitivity but regardless, the numbers are tiny compared to April, approx 2% of April’s total taking into account the hidden cases back then due to very limited testing.  

Based on your made up numbers, based on completely bullshit data.

> Anyway the government promised we needed to flatten the curve to take pressure off the NHS. We did that, or the virus did that, but now the scope has been changed to one of removing all trace of the virus despite all cost to anything else. Utter madness!!!

You really have not been paying attention. It would be utter madness to think that.

> The curve flattened by itself just as it has done in countries without lockdown. This is the natural cycle of any virus including the last two significant Coronaviruses. They had no significant second wave. Lockdown achieved very little apart from destroying our economy and the futures for our young people. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can control this thing like King Canute. A virus does what a virus does.

The evidence does not support this.

> No we have built up significant immunity here in the UK already to add to the 50-80% natural immunity already present.

This Sunetra Gupta bollocks was debunked in March.

 The New NickB 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> I don’t know exactly, do you? Regardless does it matter? We have 180,000 heart disease deaths in the UK each and every year, often preventable, yet we seem to do very little about it. A few thousand excess Coronavirus deaths, mostly amongst people who’d have died very soon anyway and we double our national debt, cancel cancer treatment, shaft our children’s education and employment prospects and ‘F’ our entire economy?

In other words, complete bollocks. The death rate doubles and you think it's just coincidence. You think we doing nothing about heart disease.

You are an idiot, but worse than that a dangerous idiot.

 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Yet another poster claiming my data to be bullshit without having the courage or conviction to post their own data in reply. Hollow words hiding a hollow argument.

8
 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> In other words, complete bollocks. The death rate doubles and you think it's just coincidence. You think we doing nothing about heart disease.

> You are an idiot, but worse than that a dangerous idiot.

Assuming you are fine with cancer patients having diagnosis and treatment delayed then to free up the NHS for the second wave?  What about people with other conditions? Or do just people with Covid matter in your strange and inhuman dystopian world? Sorry to link to the Daily Mail but the situation described is a direct result of people like you and your obsession with Covid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8764323/Diagnoses-common-health-co...

Post edited at 01:17
8
 Thomas John 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> My call: Around 250,000 to 350,000 dead by Dec 31st and perhaps 3,000,000 survivors with significant long term health damage.

Sorry you mentioned you’ve posted your arguments before and I’ve just seen this. 
What a load of utter scare mongering unsubstantiated bollocks. The model proposing 500,000 deaths, on which the government based their policy has been widely condemned and discredited by the worldwide scientific community as utter junk status. The modelling was riddled with wrong assumptions and IFR’s that we’re way out.

Still, if you truly believe that lockdowns save lives then please explain why Peru, the country with one of the strictest of all lockdowns has by far the worlds worst deaths per capita from Covid 19, and also why Sweden with a less strict lockdown than the UK has a better death rate per capita than the UK despite making the same mistake as us by sending elderly patients back into care homes from hospital.

Australia and New Zealand seem to be controlling things with ultra draconian measures in Australia’s case, and fully closed borders in New Zealand’s case but how long can this go on for? How long can they delay the inevitable without a vaccine being found? Can their economies survive this long in isolation?

10
 Jim Fraser 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> My call: Around 250,000 to 350,000 dead by Dec 31st and perhaps 3,000,000 survivors with significant long term health damage.

Good call. 

The deaths are not the biggest problem. The "significant long term health damage" is the the biggest problem and you may be underestimating. Real problems with sufficient healthy people left to pay the taxes and lead the health service.

 elsewhere 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Yes I agree, some of those will be because of Covid, a significant proportion won’t be.

So you propose a new unspecified cause of death that is not Covid showing up as excess deaths in 2020 but not 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 etc etc.

Quite a coincidence it appears at the same time as Covid and responded to control measures in late March along with Covid. It's as if it is Covid and not something else.

Post edited at 03:22
Roadrunner6 24 Sep 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Yes, it's just the spring and summer of 2020 was a very very dangerous period.. not Covid or anything.

In fact looking at the excess deaths we are probably undercounting covid deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

The top graph on this page shows the excess deaths that suddenly arise at the end of March in the US and continue through to september.

I've yet to hear an explanation on this. It's almost as if there was a deadly respiratory virus in circulation through this time..

Post edited at 04:12
Alyson30 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Yes I agree, some of those will be because of Covid, a significant proportion won’t be. Our obsession with Covid and a second wave that may never come is delaying vital cancer treatment for example. It is predicted that 30,000 unnecessary cancer deaths will be attributed to these delays in the coming year or two. 

 

> Regardless, excess deaths are now right down to normal, slightly below normal actually. Almost no Covid deaths to speak of but we do continue to have 450 daily deaths from cancer. Yet we continue to delay cancer screening, testing and treatment with this daft Covid charade to appease the fearful. Meanwhile our economy that supports our NHS gets flushed ever more down the pan. People need to wake up, man up, get a grip and put things into perspective here!

Well that’s down to having a poor health system incapable of dealing with Covid and other things at the same time.

I don’t see how that can be made better by not controlling covid.

Post edited at 06:12
2
 Blunderbuss 24 Sep 2020
In reply to anyone:

There is zero point engaging cranks like Thomas, absolutely nothing you explain to them as to why they are wrong will be accepted and they will continue to peddle half truths and downright lies....

 mik82 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> It is not shooting back up. 

Well I can assure you that hospital admissions for covid in areas of interest in my locality are already at 30% of the peak seen in April, with no sign of levelling off.

> This is the natural cycle of any virus including the last two significant Coronaviruses. They had no significant second wave. 

What on earth are you on about? If you're talking about SARS and MERS they were never allowed to have a significant first wave due to containment measures. 

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> There is zero point engaging cranks like Thomas, absolutely nothing you explain to them as to why they are wrong will be accepted and they will continue to peddle half truths and downright lies....

I don’t think they are a crank.  I think they are effectively an enemy agent, induced to make things worse by spreading the false message to exploit cranks and those desperate for an easy solution to our current problem. 

Post edited at 08:02
 The New NickB 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Yet another poster claiming my data to be bullshit without having the courage or conviction to post their own data in reply. Hollow words hiding a hollow argument.

I've already debunked it you idiot. The IFR isn't 0.3, never mind 0.1 as you suggest, you also make no account for IFR by age group and co-morbidities. So no, there is nothing hollow about my words or my argument.

In reply to The New NickB:

Mr TJ has left the building so dont expect any responses from him/her/it now.

mattmurphy 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jim Fraser:

Can someone point me to some of the evidence for this estimate.

I’ve got a lot of family in the medical profession so know quite a few people who have had Covid and no one has reported long covid symptoms.

Is the 3m figure based on hard evidence or is there a vocal minority of people reporting long covid symptoms which distorts people’s perception of the risk.

 rurp 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The ‘ let it rip ‘ argument always looks worse when it’s Lord-ash2000: that’s licking the door handles then waiting for symptoms before hugging and kissing all his/her young friends and family.....

Or were you thinking of locking down with an Ocado delivery , some outside bouldering and some Netflix whilst some other poor people did the let it rip bit.

if you want to test the let it rip scenario then sell it to your friends and family. 
 

? having some second thoughts....

mick taylor 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Whilst your maths is correct, I don’t understand your analysis. Basically, GM had extra lockdown measures to reduce the number of cases. This has not worked.  National lockdown in March had a very quick response. They pointed this out on the news last night. Cases have continued to rise (apart from the odd blip).  Other parts of U.K. has a higher rate of increase than say Bolton simply because these other areas are starting from low numbers. 
Edit: Graph for Manc Eve News. The average GM rate is three times higher than U.K. average, although the rate of increase is slower. 

Post edited at 08:51

 Neil Williams 24 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

I think this may be because people have largely stopped complying, because Dominic Cummings.

He is responsible for thousands of deaths.

2
 Graeme G 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Yet another poster claiming my data to be bullshit without having the courage or conviction to post their own data in reply. Hollow words hiding a hollow argument.

Why bother? It’s not like you’re going to have an epiphany and say “OMG you’re right! How could I possibly not have realised I was wrong”

You came here to mouth off. I’m not even sure you want anyone to agree with you. 

 skog 24 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> Whilst your maths is correct, I don’t understand your analysis. Basically, GM had extra lockdown measures to reduce the number of cases. This has not worked.

GM had extra lockdown measures to reduce the rate at which cases were increasing - and that seems to have worked.

Ideally it would have reduced that rate to a negative one, which would then reduce the number of cases; that hasn't worked, it would need stricter measures, or more compliance.

Basically, things appear to be getting worse slower than they would have been there, due to the measures. That isn't good enough, but it's something, and it might point the way.

 Stichtplate 24 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> Can someone point me to some of the evidence for this estimate.

Some of the evidence on long term health effects:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-long-term-health-effect...

> I’ve got a lot of family in the medical profession so know quite a few people who have had Covid and no one has reported long covid symptoms.

I have 3 friends (also clinicians) still off work and still suffering (mainly shortness of breath, lethargy and 'brain fog') 4 or 5 months after contracting CV19. I know of many other incidences but these are people I've known personally for several years.

> Is the 3m figure based on hard evidence or is there a vocal minority of people reporting long covid symptoms which distorts people’s perception of the risk.

Plenty of hard evidence. Also increasing concern that typical long covid symptoms may be just a fraction of long term effects with other significant neurological impacts emerging further along the line.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02599-5

This is nothing new. Some data suggests a threefold increase in Parkinson's 5 years after the Spanish flu pandemic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4684089/

Post edited at 09:44
mick taylor 24 Sep 2020
In reply to skog:

> GM had extra lockdown measures to reduce the rate at which cases were increasing - and that seems to have worked.

We might be splitting hairs here, but the measures where brought in to control the spread of the virus.  This has not worked, both from the stats, colleagues in hospitals seeing increase covid infections/deaths and on the ground experience.

 skog 24 Sep 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

There may be some cross-purpose here, yes!

The measures do appear to have helped to control the spread (as Nick B illustrated) - it's spreading slower now.

They've just only done it a little bit - not enough to actually make the virus recede, but enough to show that they can help do that in combination with other measures (or better compliance).

I don't think those measures alone, put to a population as unwilling to comply with them, can stop the spread - there's a lot more will have to be done. It isn't even clear whether the new Scottish or Northern Irish measures will pause it, but they've more chance of doing so.

 Juicymite86 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Well said bud

8
 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> When I'm saying let rip I mean within the healthy population and try and keep the old isolated then you get the best of both worlds, the vulnerable have lockdown, while the majority of the workforce carry on more or less as normal.

It's not practical because of all the necessary interactions between the healthy and vulnerable e.g. in care settings. We also don't know who the vulnerable are - even if it was possible to separate the "vulnerable" from the "healthy", we'd soon find out that actually many of the "healthy" were actually vulnerable and got severe disease. 

This approach has been considered and rejected because its not practical. Witty and vallance explained all this pretty clearly on Monday. Have you got a better handle on the evidence than the chief scientific adviser? 

> Regarding flattering the curve, I'd have been all for that approach. Only we didn't flatten the curve, we nose dived it and tried to go back to normal. And now, suprise suprise its shooting back up again and it'll be a rinse and repeat over and over until/if we get a vaccine with that strategy.

Yes. I'm afraid that's the nature of a pandemic: exponential growth. Not a lot of policy options available to address that. Either cases are low, or they're doubling every x days. Nature prevents us from keeping cases at a steady level. 

> If we really wanted a flat curve we'd have allowed hospital rates to rise to or near extended capacity then flattened it out by bringing in moderate restrictions then held infection rates at a high but manageable level until herd immunity took effect and infections die down permanently. If we'd have done that we would have probably best it by now. 

You've missed how exponential growth works. You've had a long time to understand this concept. 

You have also dramatically underestimated how long it would take to reach herd immunity - see the population survey data I posted above. 

> Instead we are practically back at square one having caused economic destruction with nothing to show for it.

You're completely wrong. We've had inevitable economic impact that is worse than it would have been had we acted promptly. We are now doing the best of a bad job having made a monumental initial f*ck up.

The ideas you propose are not viable - you've misunderstood the evidence and not listened when the facts have been explained. You don't have a valid alternative opinion, you are wrong about how the pandemic and policy response works. 

3
 Timmd 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I'd just like to add my voice to any saying 'you're wrong'. 

It occasionally happens on UKC, I've been roundly told the same before - with just cause.

Edit: IIRC I was talking about cannabis being the root of all evil, as a result of it nudging my own wobbles. 

Post edited at 11:08
mattmurphy 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Fair enough - I’ll give that a read when I have a moment.

The brain fog is really bad - must be awful for that to continue for so long. 

I wonder if there is any research around whether it is physiological or “ME like” in nature. I’m sure I’ll be able to find something though.

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The ideas you propose are not viable - you've misunderstood the evidence and not listened when the facts have been explained. You don't have a valid alternative opinion, you are wrong about how the pandemic and policy response works.

They aren't the only established poster to repeatedly propose this false solution, and to turn a blind eye to basically anything anyone has to say about it.

I am increasingly worried that after a desperate winter, this idea is going to gain a lot more traction with a lot of people and things are going to get quite ugly and its will be a perfect time for the rise of a demagogue.  Especially as there is some sort of orchestrated network pushing this idea out on to people desperate for a solution.

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> I wonder if there is any research around whether it is physiological or “ME like” in nature. I’m sure I’ll be able to find something though.

An increasing amount.  

Covid is perhaps more a vascular disease than a respiratory one, and it appears to be getting in to the vascular endothelium.  I think it's going to transpire that it's affecting molecular exchange across the vascular walls in the gut, potentially with microbiome consequences, and that this is related to the post viral fatigue.

Edit: Or I'm talking out of my a**e and am totally wrong.  Either way, the research that is going on around this is likely to have big consequences for ME.

Post edited at 11:18
 timjones 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

How many people do you honestly think haven't heard it parroted around repeatedly for months on end.

The point is that people pass bugs onto one another all the time, if you're vulnerable there is a chance that one of those bugs might kill you. We're all going to die and we wouldn't be panicing about the common cold in a normal year.

Maybe we should not be so fearful of our own mortality, life is shit if you let your fears rule you.

8
mattmurphy 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

It’s interesting isn’t it.

From my limited understanding, the awareness of how Covid impacts the cardiovascular system has been one of the main reasons for the decrease in the death rates for critically ill patients. 

Anecdotally it seems that a good proportion of those in intensive care in March/ April were dying of thrombosis. Everyone was reporting how suddenly they went i.e. bad but stable to dead in a few hours rather than days as the medics and nurses would expect.

Fingers crosses this translates into improved survival rates this winter.

 Mike Stretford 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Still, if you truly believe that lockdowns save lives then please explain why Peru, the country with one of the strictest of all lockdowns has by far the worlds worst deaths per capita from Covid 19,

Non compliance with the lockdown restrictions and an under resourced health service

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/08/907084962/peru-locked-down-early-now-it-batt...

> and also why Sweden with a less strict lockdown than the UK has a better death rate per capita than the UK despite making the same mistake as us by sending elderly patients back into care homes from hospital.

Sweden just isn't comparable to the UK, much lower population density, with the 3 urban areas comparable to the UKs many, geographically well separated. Can you you explain why Sweden has a much higher mortality rate than the other Nordic countries it is comparable to?

 Neil Williams 24 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> Anecdotally it seems that a good proportion of those in intensive care in March/ April were dying of thrombosis.

And this (and I know because I'm having a non-COVID version of it treated at the moment) is easily treatable - whack them full of heparin[1].  That does carry risks of internal bleeding, but with someone in an ICU it can be managed, so a higher dose can be used than if it was an outpatient treatment.

[1] Or even, as a precaution, stick every COVID admission on warfarin.  That can't be used as a reactionary medication as it takes 5 days to reach therapeutic levels, but it would be a sort of prophylactic.

Post edited at 11:43
 Stichtplate 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> And this (and I know because I'm having a non-COVID version of it treated at the moment) is easily treatable - whack them full of heparin[1].  That does carry risks of internal bleeding, but with someone in an ICU it can be managed, so a higher dose can be used than if it was an outpatient treatment.

> [1] Or even, as a precaution, stick every COVID admission on warfarin.  That can't be used as a reactionary medication as it takes 5 days to reach therapeutic levels, but it would be a sort of prophylactic.

Systemic hypercoagulopathy is very far from easily treatable.

Alyson30 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Non compliance with the lockdown restrictions and an under resourced health service

> Sweden just isn't comparable to the UK, much lower population density, with the 3 urban areas comparable to the UKs many, geographically well separated. Can you you explain why Sweden has a much higher mortality rate than the other Nordic countries it is comparable to?

It is clear that they pattern of social interaction is massively important to the spread of this virus. In particular the low prevalence of mixed generation households in Sweden could explain why they have had a slower pandemic than the U.K.

Post edited at 12:02
 Cobra_Head 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Hospital admissions and deaths are the only reliable metric. Test stats are open to too much inaccuracy. Oh and there’s the huge false positive issue, and the sensitivity problems. UK been testing in a 40 cycle range whereas Germany is 30 cycle. Why else do you think their recorded deaths and cases are lower?

But let's pretend we can stop anyone dying, but not eliminate the virus, we can just prevent any  more deaths, but supposing people then get better. The people who used to die, now have massive lung damage and other organ failure, but they don't die.

So the virus is still here, it's not weakened, it's not causing deaths any more, but it's still with us, still spreading, still causing damage to people.

If you're basing you statistics on deaths, it's now pointless, because there are no deaths!!

If you're comparing who many people used to die against how many are dying now, it's no longer a valid comparison, because we're stopping people from dying, whereas we couldn't do this previously.

 Timmd 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > The ideas you propose are not viable - you've misunderstood the evidence and not listened when the facts have been explained. You don't have a valid alternative opinion, you are wrong about how the pandemic and policy response works. They aren't the only established poster to repeatedly propose this false solution, and to turn a blind eye to basically anything anyone has to say about it.

> I am increasingly worried that after a desperate winter, this idea is going to gain a lot more traction with a lot of people and things are going to get quite ugly and its will be a perfect time for the rise of a demagogue.  Especially as there is some sort of orchestrated network pushing this idea out on to people desperate for a solution.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809339/Threat-extremism-RISING-Br...

Pardon the Daily Mail link, but (to support your concern) there's already signs of increasing risks of far right extremism, while not all people who voted a certain way in a recent referendum are intolerant sorts, the anti immigration rhetoric of the winning campaign by most accounts gave a green light to intolerant sentiments, and it seems to be that harsher times bring out the worst in people.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-far-right-extremism-lockdo...

Which seems to be happening already, with people being (more) stuck at home and going down internet rabbit holes, and not having the grounding effect of workmates and friends who keep them grounded in reality.  There's 5G masts being blamed, and anti-Jew conspiracy theories doing the rounds too.  

I was just a couple of days ago pondering that the mixture of a No Deal and Covid and the economic and social consequences of that could be a perfect storm for things to become rather grim, in terms of rising intolerance and extremism, it seems to be that 'the people who know' are already concerned, - and that the risk has increased already. 

Edit: It may be a perfect storm of suffering, too, given the effects of austerity already, on the supportive fabric in society regarding mental health and help for disabled people and what have you, if covid stops people from intermingling in the way humans do, it's a pretty bleak prospect, there may/will be the bare minimum there for the vulnerable.

Post edited at 12:15
 Cobra_Head 24 Sep 2020
In reply to timjones:

> How many people do you honestly think haven't heard it parroted around repeatedly for months on end.

> The point is that people pass bugs onto one another all the time, if you're vulnerable there is a chance that one of those bugs might kill you. We're all going to die and we wouldn't be panicing about the common cold in a normal year.

> Maybe we should not be so fearful of our own mortality, life is shit if you let your fears rule you.


All very well and yet, the simple wearing of masks and social distancing has reduced flu deaths in Australia to next to nothing, a side effect of CV19, one of the good ones.

Life is shit if you let fear rule you, but stupidity is more dangerous, and it's not like most people haven't been surviving the measures we've taken so far.

Wearing a mask and social distancing, it's hardly purgatory, is it?

Losing a loved one, that a fear I'm prepared to make sacrifices for.

 Cobra_Head 24 Sep 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> It’s interesting isn’t it.

> From my limited understanding, the awareness of how Covid impacts the cardiovascular system has been one of the main reasons for the decrease in the death rates for critically ill patients. 

I was told it makes the blood thicker and "sticky" in many patients.

 Timmd 24 Sep 2020
In reply to timjones:

> How many people do you honestly think haven't heard it parroted around repeatedly for months on end.

> The point is that people pass bugs onto one another all the time, if you're vulnerable there is a chance that one of those bugs might kill you. We're all going to die and we wouldn't be panicing about the common cold in a normal year.

> Maybe we should not be so fearful of our own mortality, life is shit if you let your fears rule you.

It's an interesting one, the linking of fear to wearing a mask and keeping clean hands, given that at it's peak, there were 200 deaths a day due to covid during the least problematic season of the year in the UK, I'm pretty happy to do those, but I'm also not fearful. It might be just my way of staying cheerier - that I've a warped kind of humour, but I occasionally want to go 'Whooo plague' at people with covid in mind, I'd definitely deserve to be punched if I did, but living fearfully and taking precautions needn't go hand in hand. I wear a mask etc, and 'from doing that' I'm less fearful and gloomy.

Post edited at 12:27
 Timmd 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> All very well and yet, the simple wearing of masks and social distancing has reduced flu deaths in Australia to next to nothing, a side effect of CV19, one of the good ones. Life is shit if you let fear rule you, but stupidity is more dangerous, and it's not like most people haven't been surviving the measures we've taken so far.

> Wearing a mask and social distancing, it's hardly purgatory, is it? Losing a loved one, that a fear I'm prepared to make sacrifices for.

I think the perspective one adopts can help, it's definitely something I register, that I can't see as many of my friends as I'd  like to, and that life has changed regarding general intermingling, but at the same time, the sun still shines, and I have my health (luckily I get to cycle in the Peak), and nobody ever said that life was always going to be 'easy ground', and it's only going to be a phase, rather than a way of living which will be for the rest of our lives. It's a short term adaption required from us all which will be for the general good, so that's it really, this is how it's got to be...

Post edited at 13:01
 The New NickB 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I don’t think they are a crank.  I think they are effectively an enemy agent, induced to make things worse by spreading the false message to exploit cranks and those desperate for an easy solution to our current problem. 

Certainly had a scripted feel to it.

 Mike Stretford 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Wearing a mask and social distancing, it's hardly purgatory, is it?

Exactly. It's clearly working in Japan.

 summo 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Sweden just isn't comparable to the UK, much lower population density, with the 3 urban areas comparable to the UKs many, geographically well separated. Can you you explain why Sweden has a much higher mortality rate than the other Nordic countries it is comparable to?

They put in measures two weeks after other scandic countries. Two weeks is a long time when it's growing exponentially. 

Care home system, ppe, staffing

Far more migrants, compact housing and initial info was mainly in Swedish. Plus they ignored bans on groups and continue with religious gatherings. 

RentonCooke 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> We've had inevitable economic impact that is worse than it would have been had we acted promptly. We are now doing the best of a bad job having made a monumental initial f*ck up.

We've essentially beaten down the virus and are more or less at the point we were pre-lockdown. Now, as it resurges, we're getting the opportunity to try again and do what many claim (mostly with hindsight) we should have done at the outset.

It will be interesting to see where that gets us and whether the actions Boris was piled on for not undertaking meet with the success they were forecast to provide. Though its not an altogether clean slate as the economic hit should be less this time (institutions and businesses have mitigation measures in place), the body-count likewise (viral weakening and health services much better prepared), and travel is virtually at a stand-still already.

But I'm less than certain that the formula of recurrent lockdowns and strict limitations on social gatherings, which over many cycles clearly (but silently) cost a great many lives, all combined with the prolonged economic hit, really will turn out to be a better option than a 'target the vulnerable' approach. 

2
 Blunderbuss 24 Sep 2020
In reply to RentonCooke:

> We've essentially beaten down the virus and are more or less at the point we were pre-lockdown. Now, as it resurges, we're getting the opportunity to try again and do what many claim (mostly with hindsight) we should have done at the outset.

> It will be interesting to see where that gets us and whether the actions Boris was piled on for not undertaking meet with the success they were forecast to provide. Though its not an altogether clean slate as the economic hit should be less this time (institutions and businesses have mitigation measures in place), the body-count likewise (viral weakening and health services much better prepared), and travel is virtually at a stand-still already.

> But I'm less than certain that the formula of recurrent lockdowns and strict limitations on social gatherings, which over many cycles clearly (but silently) cost a great many lives, all combined with the prolonged economic hit, really will turn out to be a better option than a 'target the vulnerable' approach. 

Not the target (protect) the vulnerable shit again.....no country in Europe is doing this.

Ask yourself why not...

2
 Cobra_Head 24 Sep 2020
In reply to timjones:

> Maybe we should not be so fearful of our own mortality, ...

Sorry I missed this in my original reply.

Your quote just about sums up many people attitude, because it's not about OUR OWN mortality is it?

It's about maybe having the disease, and not knowing, and passing it on to OTHER people.

If it just affected the individual, then fair enough do whatever you want, but more likely than not you'll be killing someone other than yourself, you do get that, right?

 jkarran 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Sorry those links to cases, (sorry infections), you posted don’t even consider the hidden 300,000 or so daily infections not recorded in March/April.

> The IFR is well known now to be somewhere between 0.3 and 0.1%. Very similar to seasonal flu.

Tentatively understood might be a more reasonable way of putting that than well known and it's worth remembering seasonal flue is a dangerous disease we routinely vaccinate against, a nasty flu pandemic was and remains the top of the UK's risk register.

> If we had 1,000 deaths a day back in April, then with an IFR of 0.3% then that would require 300,000 to have been infected each and every day.

That hangs on three assumptions:

1: The IFR is 0.3%. FWIW I'm inclined to believe that's ballpark for a cross section of society but it's not justified to say the matter is settled and it's clear it differs very significantly depending where in a society the infection is (or was three weeks ago) concentrated.

2: That there were 1000 covid deaths per day at peak. We know there are significant flaws in the way covid deaths have been recorded and there remains significant unexplained excess mortality for the Spring period, most of which is likely directly attributable to unrecorded covid.

3: That infections were evenly distributed throughout society. They weren't and still aren't. We now know however that hospitals and care homes were reservoirs of covid, staff and service users moving between institutions vectors. Those places where the sick and elderly covid impacts most severely are concentrated were for a terrible period where it was spreading most readily. The mass clearing of 'bed blocked' hospital wards to make way for covid patients probably represent's the UK's most significant and certainly it's most deadly super spreading event, it was in hindsight a terrible mistake.

> Yet our recorded infection figures for March are only around 5,000 or so daily because only the illest in hospital were tested. These were all actual cases. Now we are testing 200,000 plus a day and finding 5,000 infections. Yet most with no symptoms.

People presenting for pillar 2 tests today are screened for covid symptoms in order to qualify, they're not asymptomatic, they're just not hospitalised.

> And still almost no deaths. You have heard of false positives and our overly sensitive 40 cycle tests haven’t you? Most of what we are seeing now in the case (sorry infection) data is remnants of old infections.

If this is mostly contamination driven false positives and old cases why detections now rising exponentially as we would expect new infections to? What changed?

jk

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> If this is mostly contamination driven false positives and old cases why detections now rising exponentially as we would expect new infections to? What changed?

Quite.  I’m hoping the CEBM will revisit their recent outputs on this point and request the media no longer use their outdated commentary about old viral RNA leading to false positives being a major part of detections.

I’m not holding my breath.

 jkarran 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Thomas John:

> Yes I agree, some of those will be because of Covid, a significant proportion won’t be. Our obsession with Covid and a second wave that may never come is delaying vital cancer treatment for example. It is predicted that 30,000 unnecessary cancer deaths will be attributed to these delays in the coming year or two. 

I'm presuming you understand what is meant by excess deaths. If a 'significant proportion' (10%, 50%, 90%?) of the c60k excess deaths in spring 2020 aren't covid, what exactly *are* they?

I agree we have a wave of excess cancer deaths coming but then we would have had that and worse had we let covid rip the arse out of our health services. As was most people receiving cancer care through spring were still able to receive it and in a clinical environment which did not expose imunosuppressed people to high risk of covid infection. That said the picture wasn't uniform and lockdown wasn't 'free' but the alternative was clearly worse, we saw a glimpse of that future in Italy and New York.

> Meanwhile our economy that supports our NHS gets flushed ever more down the pan. People need to wake up, man up, get a grip and put things into perspective here!

The economy and public health cannot be dissociated, it's a false choice. Your argument boils down to wishing this wasn't happening.

jk

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> Certainly had a scripted feel to it.

Googling  the phrase “large group of Belgian doctors” turns up very few links (3 webpages on the whole of the internet), one includes this forum post from within a day of the one here.

https://commons.commondreams.org/t/bill-gates-global-agenda-and-how-we-can-...

Paid enemy agent or delusional fantasist, either way it’s not good for society.

Post edited at 17:07
 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

... F*cking tories! 

In reply to Thomas John:

John, Thomas...?

 gallam1 24 Sep 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

In relation to Thomas John's posts, who would like to weigh in with odds that  Ivor Cummins' analysis is correct?

Keep in mind that you should be prepared to back up your calculations with a bet.

I'm willing to place bets with odds > 100:1, and I'm interested at 10:1.

1
 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to RentonCooke:

> We've essentially beaten down the virus and are more or less at the point we were pre-lockdown. Now, as it resurges, we're getting the opportunity to try again and do what many claim (mostly with hindsight) we should have done at the outset.

You only get one shot at lockdown, and we blew it. We're now economically ruined because we were too slow out of the blocks, so we can't afford another one. The only thing we can do is skate on the thin ice of restrictions that try to keep us running, more or less.

> It will be interesting to see where that gets us and whether the actions Boris was piled on for not undertaking meet with the success they were forecast to provide. Though its not an altogether clean slate as the economic hit should be less this time (institutions and businesses have mitigation measures in place), the body-count likewise (viral weakening and health services much better prepared), and travel is virtually at a stand-still already.

We're not going back to lockdown - that's economic armageddon. But we might get pretty close to it when they have to pile on the restrictions as hospital admissions rise.

> But I'm less than certain that the formula of recurrent lockdowns and strict limitations on social gatherings, which over many cycles clearly (but silently) cost a great many lives, all combined with the prolonged economic hit, really will turn out to be a better option than a 'target the vulnerable' approach. 

There is no such thing as the "target the vulnerable" approach. I don't know why people keep saying it, because there is no such thing. The only option that's been available since we f*cked up in January/February is "skate on thin ice and keep your fingers crossed". That's it. There's no alternative. We've just got to suck it up, 'cause that's reality.

1
 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> You are an idiot, but worse than that a dangerous idiot.

Having done a bit of trawling, I don’t think that they are an idiot so much as a paid “social media consultant” who has been commercially engaged to push this,  using a briefing document of resources provided to them.  If I had to guess at who prepared the brief it would be a certain Scottish medical doctor and self-proclaimed skeptic.

But who paid for this person to go to the effort of peddling this toxic crap on UKC and presumably elsewhere?

How low must one fall to accept such paid employment?

Why is the UK media turning a blind eye to the orchestrated anti-lockdown messaging that’s been going on since March?  In New Zealand, investigative journalists (remember them?) have been uncovering some of the intermediary PR organisations and funding lines.

 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > You are an idiot, but worse than that a dangerous idiot.

> Having done a bit of trawling, I don’t think that they are an idiot so much as a paid “social media consultant” who has been commercially engaged to push this

If that's the case, then he can f*ck off and die. If you're wrong, only half that applies.

 jkarran 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> How low must one fall to accept such paid employment?

There must be 10,000+ digital native 2020 graduates with significant skills and debt pouring out into a locked down labour market. It's a propagandists wet dream especially if you'r crooked enough to get the state you're destabilising to pick up a chunk of the tab through job retention schemes.

That said with our contrarian visitor it's not clear he's the recruiting sergeant, quite possibly just a well provisioned volunteer.

> Why is the UK media turning a blind eye to the orchestrated anti-lockdown messaging that’s been going on since March?  In New Zealand, investigative journalists (remember them?) have been uncovering some of the intermediary PR organisations and funding lines.

Difficult, unpopular, uncomfortably close to home. Not sure which order.

jk

Post edited at 22:22
 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Why is the UK media turning a blind eye to the orchestrated anti-lockdown messaging that’s been going on since March?  In New Zealand, investigative journalists (remember them?) have been uncovering some of the intermediary PR organisations and funding lines.

I don't get it though, what's the point? Who gains, and how?

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't get it though, what's the point? Who gains, and how?

There were a set of new accounts pushing anti-lockdown and "what is an old life worth" anyway messages around late March/early April this year.  They always tied back to the same few sources of "data" and narrative.  There were a couple of other regular posters chugging down the same Kool Aid.  The site owners apparently rapidly banned and deleted those new accounts as they emerged.  A couple were as blatant and incompetent as the one on this thread, at least one more was a much more subtle post that you had to deconstruct to get at the real narrative.

What're they looking to do?  To ferment division in the people, to further polarise a once moderate society to opposing ultra-extremes etc, to literally turn people on each other through blame and victimisation.  With this issue it's easier to push people further to the right, so that's the side that's being fed.

Why are they doing it?  If I knew the answer to that I'd be in the kind of job that wouldn't let me post crap to social media.  My best guess is that it's intended to destabilise the UK by furthering the drive to the politics of identity and division, which prefers unsubstantial politicians over compassionate, strategic planners.  We're perhaps 10 years behind the USA in this process.  But what's the ultimate goal?  Is it personal enrichment of a small group of people?  Or is it international politics, buying time for another nation to rise unchallenged to global prominence?  

Or as jkarran put it far more succinctly some moths ago - "to destroy belief in anything by promoting belief in everything".

 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> A couple were as blatant and incompetent as the one on this thread

Yes, the turn that this thread has taken is not exactly a mark of success for Thomas John. If you're right, then rather than just being a c^nt, he is shit at being a c^nt. It's not a good look, in my opinion.

> What're they looking to do?  To ferment division in the people, to further polarise a once moderate society to opposing ultra-extremes etc, to literally turn people on each other through blame and victimisation.  With this issue it's easier to push people further to the right, so that's the side that's being fed.

I just find this a bit too vague to get my head around. If I was investing money into something, it would have to be something more tangible. Surely you can't invest in just general c^ntiness? What are the measurable outcomes you're looking for?

> Why are they doing it?  If I knew the answer to that I'd be in the kind of job that wouldn't let me post crap to social media.  My best guess is that it's intended to destabilise the UK by furthering the drive to the politics of identity and division, which prefers unsubstantial politicians over compassionate, strategic planners.  We're perhaps 10 years behind the USA in this process.  But what's the ultimate goal?  Is it personal enrichment of a small group of people?  Or is it international politics, buying time for another nation to rise unchallenged to global prominence?  

It's just all a bit dark and conspiracy-theory sounding. I just don't know...

Post edited at 22:47
 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Surely you can't invest in just general c^ntiness?

Look at the last ten years in politics and look at how we ended up with Hobson's choice at the ballot box and the weaponisation of ignorance over Brexit.  Perhaps we just can't see where the current investment in social media muck-raking is intended to take us. 

> What are the measurable outcomes you're looking for?

Perhaps... In 6 months time, after a winter of various degrees of lockdown, high deaths, mass job losses and a cancelled Christmas, Boris Johnson stands down (as prophesied by Cummings Sr) and there is sufficient public support for "let it rip" and softer versions thereof that a demagogue can rise under that mantra.

> It's just all a bit dark and conspiracy-theory sounding. I just don't know...

Look at how similar the core messaging of the covid/anti-lockdown protests are in the USA, UK and Australia.  Either stupidity is more contagious than covid or someone is messaging and aligning.  These are dark times for democracy in the English speaking world.  Perhaps I'm joining too many dots and getting the wrong answer, but there's no shortage of shit stained dots right now.

 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Look at the last ten years in politics and look at how we ended up with Hobson's choice at the ballot box and the weaponisation of ignorance over Brexit.

I can't see anything orchestrated in those events. Both the Labour Party and the Tory Party are full of pricks, and there is your explanation. Only months beforehand, Theresa May was PM, and no one's going to convince me there was anything deliberate, planned or orchestrated about that!

> Perhaps... In 6 months time, after a winter of various degrees of lockdown, high deaths, mass job losses and a cancelled Christmas, Boris Johnson stands down (as prophesied by Cummings Sr) and there is sufficient public support for "let it rip" and softer versions thereof that a demagogue can rise under that mantra.

> Look at how similar the core messaging of the covid/anti-lockdown protests are in the USA, UK and Australia.  Either stupidity is more contagious than covid or someone is messaging and aligning.  These are dark times for democracy in the English speaking world.  Perhaps I'm joining too many dots and getting the wrong answer, but there's no shortage of shit stained dots right now.

I think there is something common in the emotional circuitry of the right-wing brain that's receptive to this perspective, that's all. "Taking away my freedom, I don't want to share my toys, I don't see why I should have to face the reality of the world when it doesn't go exactly my way" - that kind of thing. Anything that lends justification to being a total c^nt is going to be popular with these people.

 The New NickB 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

The real COVID conspiracy. Both enthralling and if even partly true, very disturbing.

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

With regards your view over mine: “I want to believe”.  

But random, new accounts don’t keep popping up on social media to push a single, specific view point using the same language and trash-grade references by accident. 

 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> But random, new accounts don’t keep popping up on social media to push a single, specific view point using the same language and trash-grade references by accident. 

I don't know - I'm not SM savvy at all, this is my only use. I don't use twitter or facebook. What about 5G conspiracies? Is that orchestrated for a purpose, or just a load of old shit that gains popularity?

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> The real COVID conspiracy. Both enthralling and if even partly true, very disturbing.

Here’s a piece from NZ written in April.  6 academics assisted by a PR agency pushing a bunch of angles that may seem familiar and are almost identical in the way they’re put across to the pop up accounts from March/April on here.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/15-04-2020/siouxsie-wiles-about-those-crie...

You’ve mentioned Gupta before; so do you think they’re thick as pig shit or do you think they’re abusing their high academic position to further an agenda for someone by providing them with a highly credible reference (by credentials not by content) for their arguments?

I’m well aware that I’m sound like Senator McCarthy or Norah Satie at this point.  That’s the problem with real conspiracies - they hide in plain sight as when you look for a conspiracy you find a dozen, real or not.

Post edited at 23:23
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If I was investing money into something, it would have to be something more tangible. 

Look to foreign national security agencies, perhaps? Who might want to destabilise a western european bloc?

Post edited at 23:19
 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I avoid most social media too.  It seems the same thing happens elsewhere though.  5G seems very tied up in the covid/freedom/anti-lockdown protests.

cb294 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

The troll has a limited point, though. The delays in e.g. cancer referrals and the reluctance of people to seek help at their local A and E has verifiably caused in increase in deaths by strokes and heart attacks, and a non trivial number of cases where people's cancers have become untreatable in the time lost due to Covid (the number of deaths from that is as yet lower, as even terminal cancer does not normally kill within months).

The dominant cause, though, was CV19.

CB

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Alternatively, can you think of anyone with financial investments who might benefit from 'life going on as normal'?

 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Look to foreign national security agencies, perhaps? Who might want to destabilise a western european bloc?

But if you did want to destabilise the western bloc, would you go about it by trolling UKC? Don't get me wrong, it's a flattering position to be in here, fighting on the cyber-frontline against the Ruskies...

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> But if you did want to destabilise the western bloc, would you go about it by trolling UKC?

You don’t, you go about it by inducing a few scientists and ket opinion leaders to muddy the waters, by running newspaper pieces about what those scientists say wrapped in heavily emotivly loaded text, by paying “social media consultants” to post narratives backed by the news stories and scientists to *thousands* of social media sites.  UKC is but one small link in the chain of mind infection.  Perhaps ours will fizzle out, perhaps we’ll be like the recent Bolton super spreader.

It’s a bit like the way some big charities run their Campaigns departments.  The dirty side of political lobbying, almost totally unregulated in the UK. Well, the dirtier side.

Post edited at 23:30
 The New NickB 24 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> You’ve mentioned Gupta before; so you think they’re thick as pig shit or do you think they’re abusing their high academic position to further an agenda for someone by providing them with a highly credible reference (by credentials not by content) for their arguments?

I would usually always favour stupidity over conspiracy. Both Sunetra Gupta's contributions to Covid understanding have been spectacularly wrong, the first has probably got the most traction (65% infection in March) with the anti-lockdown brigade, the second (1/10,000 mortality in June) was so stupid, you would question if she could actually honestly make that mistake. Both hypotheses heavily backed and promoted by the optomistic Professor Sikora. There you have two of the three authors of the anti-lockdown letter doing the rounds at the moment.

The one thing that puzzles me, if I had serious concerns about the science, I wouldn't be sharing a platform with Gupta.

 wintertree 24 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Christ, that production style is giving me flash backs to Chris Morris’ Blue Jam and Jam.  

Roadrunner6 24 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

Yeah definitely, my wife's (an oncologist) got a few bad stories of people who didn't make cancer checkups or didn't get in for help early.

There's certainly going to be considerable costs to the lockdowns and such.

 Jon Stewart 24 Sep 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Alternatively, can you think of anyone with financial investments who might benefit from 'life going on as normal'?

This is my sticking point. The argument that's being pushed is just a load of meaningless shit, because if we tried to "go back to normal" we'd just end up "f*cked in the arse" - it doesn't really matter who you are, if restrictions were lifted we'd end up in a 2nd lockdown and you'd be f*cked.

About the only people making any gains out of covid are the manufacturers of hand sanitising gel (yes, they're rubbing their hands together) and funky fashion facemasks. Campaigning to "Let it rip" is just like working in industry and voting Brexit, or vandalising a 5G mast when you're paying your Vodaphone contract. You don't take a shit in your bed to protest the bad service at a hotel, because then you have to sleep in shitted bed (courtesy of Stewart Lee - the joke, not the shitted bed).

This is why the stupidity rather than conspiracy argument looks more compelling to me. We live in a world of shitted beds.

Post edited at 23:53
 Cobra_Head 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> ... F*cking tories! 


Them as well

 Lead dnf 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> This approach has been considered and rejected because its not practical. Witty and vallance explained all this pretty clearly on Monday. Have you got a better handle on the evidence than the chief scientific adviser? 

Here is the transcript from the Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer briefing you refer to on Monday: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-scientific-advisor-and-chief-m... 

Please point me to where they refer to the "protect the vulnerable" approach. If they have mentioned this elsewhere, do point me to it and I'll educate myself.

But don't pass off your personal opinion as that of the chief scientific advisor. 

5
 Jon Stewart 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lead dnf:

> Here is the transcript from the Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer briefing you refer to on Monday: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-scientific-advisor-and-chief-m... 

> Please point me to where they refer to the "protect the vulnerable" approach. If they have mentioned this elsewhere, do point me to it and I'll educate myself.

"The problem with a pandemic or an epidemic infection like this is if I as an individual increase my risk, I increase the risk to everyone around me and then everyone who’s a contact of theirs, and sooner or later the chain will meet people who are vulnerable or elderly or have a long term problem from Covid."

Edit: this message was then given the political treatment by Johnson, advised by the err, chief scientific adviser, where he directly rebutted the "protect the vulnerable"approach:

"And as for the suggestion that we should simply lock up the elderly and the vulnerable – with all the suffering that would entail – I must tell you that this is just not realistic, because if you let the virus rip through the rest of the population it would inevitably find its way through to the elderly as well, and in much greater numbers."

Can you follow the thread, or do you still think that this is just my personal opinion, and not that of the chief scientific adviser?

Post edited at 01:07
cb294 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The destabilisation happens one step earlier: Target some gullible idiots who then unwittingly multiply your disinformation. Our resident troll is unlikely to sit in St. Petersburg, the people who fed him that shit probably do.

CB

 neilh 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Do you know how the Germans or even the Estonians ( who have learnt how to deal with Russian trolls) are addressing this sort of internet claptrap.

I guess it is pretty rife in most countries.

 Neil Williams 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Look at how similar the core messaging of the covid/anti-lockdown protests are in the USA, UK and Australia.  Either stupidity is more contagious than covid or someone is messaging and aligning.  These are dark times for democracy in the English speaking world.  Perhaps I'm joining too many dots and getting the wrong answer, but there's no shortage of shit stained dots right now.

Isn't it more selfishness, i.e. that those in age groups that are pretty certain not to die of it and only have a low chance of post-viral effects (aged e.g. up to about 30) are just getting sick of ruining their lives basically to help the "gammons" who have progressively ruined theirs with crap like Brexit?

I don't think it's the right approach, but I think it's totally understandable that they might think that way.

Post edited at 09:27
1
 neilh 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Lets not tar all of this age group with the same brush.I know quite alot who are taking this stuff very seriuosly becuase they recognise the impact on  other family members and also their studies.

My daughter and her fellow student flat mates do not want their 3rd year f~~ked up by having to isolate etc. Its the same for most of her wide circle of student friends.( maths, engineering, physics, law). They get it.

It will be a small % who have this does not affect me attitude.

The rest are smart people, the future.

Post edited at 09:39
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Isn't it more selfishness, i.e. that those in age groups that are pretty certain not to die of it and only have a low chance of post-viral effects (aged e.g. up to about 30) are just getting sick of ruining their lives basically to help the "gammons" who have progressively ruined theirs with crap like Brexit?

I think there are some younger people with that selfishness who are also so misguided that they don't understand what "letting it rip" would do to their future prospect by the economic and societal affects.  We've had posts that I think are from that angle on UKC.  The idea crops up occasionally, with no real relation to where we are with the virus at the time. 

But, these pop-up accounts have been timed to the rising peaks of infection, have relied on the same sources of mis-information, have had the same "debating tactics" based specifically around the concept that anything linked is "evidence" or "data", that refusal to engage with clear crackpots is admission of defeat and that all opinions are equal.  It's all remarkably similar to what was identified to be going on around Brexit, with that mis-information campaign running out of Russia and targeting many social media sites.

> I don't think it's the right approach, but I think it's totally understandable that they might think that way.

I don't think it's an approach because I don't think it's possible in the way the genuine believers want.  I think this thread has a paid social media consultant behind it, who's identity can be found with judicious and careful use of search engines.  

I think at least two of the rapidly deleted anti-lockdown posters back in March/April were paid consultants as with this one, and another two posters were "normal people" who had been drawn down the rabbit hole by those influences elsewhere as cb294 alludes above.

I'm not even convinced that all of the content was written by a human.  Some of it reads like talking to chat bot, especially given my uncharacteristically blunt approach and their generic platitudes.  

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/twitter-bots-are-sprea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades

Right, where's my surgical mask hat?

 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> The one thing that puzzles me, if I had serious concerns about the science, I wouldn't be sharing a platform with Gupta.

In terms of Sikora, he is no stranger to lobbying for un-evidenced practice in medicine (although have some sympathy with where he's coming from I disagree with the approach for bigger picture reasons).  He's also nicely tucked away at that rare thing - a private UK university, itself no stranger to controversial funding (or just less good at keeping it out of the news than other institutions...) and is presumably now an emeritus sort.

In terms of the third author, Henghanm of the CEBM, I have for a long time felt their output to be biased, and now I have a growing concern over their "old viral material giving a false PCR result, really there are nothing like as many active cases" line that is still being actively pushed by some of the media (including a headline BBC article a few days ago) and by many anti-lockdown campaigners.  In terms of it's relevance to the debate in the UK, it has been consigned to the dustbin as it totally fails to explain the rising case numbers, hospital admissions, ITU admissions and deaths.  Any respectable researcher would effectively recall that contribution to the debate by clarifying how - right or wrong - it has been outdated by recent events and shown to have no relevance.  I was rather skeptical of it before the rise in cases as any effect they describe is smaller than the false-negative rate of the PCR tests.  

So with Gupta and Heneghan we have two academics from one of the most prestigious and monied universities in the world separately pushing research that is either demonstrably false or now totally irrelevant and they've managed to recruit one other academic to join them, and that's an oncologist into their 70s who I think genuinely has concern for the people and isn't themselves producing clearly flawed research.  

What ever is going on, it stinks to high heaven.

I have always maintained that there is a debate to bed had about the trade off between economy and death, but there is no place for what I can only conceive of as deliberate misinformation in such a debate, and there is no way an academic should be using their credentials to push what appears to be deliberate misinformation.  

Post edited at 10:04
 Neil Williams 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I have always maintained that there is a debate to bed had about the trade off between economy and death, but there is no place for what I can only conceive of as deliberate misinformation in such a debate, and there is no way an academic should be using their credentials to push what appears to be deliberate misinformation. 

As I've turned off the like button, have a like for that.  The economy can't be disregarded like some suggest it can, but it is a balance, and an incredibly difficult one at that.

 Lord_ash2000 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> This is my sticking point. The argument that's being pushed is just a load of meaningless shit, because if we tried to "go back to normal" we'd just end up "f*cked in the arse" - it doesn't really matter who you are, if restrictions were lifted we'd end up in a 2nd lockdown and you'd be f*cked.

I think you're misunderstanding what people who want to return to normal ASAP actually want to happen. The general gist is, let it rip, let the weak die off and the rest of us can get on with life, no lockdowns, minimal if any restrictions.

There would naturally still be significant disruption to businesses when the virus is rife, with people being off ill and possible customers voluntarily isolating etc. but it would never be as bad as forcing everyone to isolate regardless in another lockdown. It's basically, let 3-5 hundred thousand die rather than spending X 100 billions of pounds keeping some of them alive another few years. As a quick reference £100,000,000,000 for 500,000 people is £200,000 per person, multiply as required depending on the final cost of this. 

And it's not hard to see why some people would be of this mindset. Most people haven't had or aren't even aware they've had Corona Virus, nor has it affected anyone they know the fact covid19 exists has so far been irrelevant to their daily lives. However, they likely have been affected by the cost of dealing with it, maybe they have lost their job or at very least taken a 20% pay cut, maybe their business has been ruined or gone into debt, maybe they have had to cancel their wedding or had to miss their baby's scans etc.

Many, many more people have been screwed over by the government's attempts to deal with the virus than those who've fallen ill or died from it and their tolerance is running out. And yes, letting it rip will screw over a lot of people too, not to mention kill a lot of people but people want it over with and they see the government's attempts fail despite great financial pain put on the population and start looking at sure-fire if more drastic options.   

I'm not saying I'd 100% go with the above, but I'm certainly leaning much more towards that side of things and can certainly see why people would view things that way. Instead, though, we'll just watch the government spend another 100 billion or two, get infection rates down again until spring when we open up again and watch it rates go back up as they are now. 

2
 The New NickB 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Wow.

 timjones 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Do you really think that acting like a dense parrot by repeating a lazy and unimaginative line that was well past it's sell by date  6 months ago is really going to influence anybody that hasn't been won over by it's  insensitivity?

If you wouldn't be so crass about the common cold why do it over Covid?

 Bacon Butty 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

We spend approx £130bn a year on health care in England.

Think what we could spend that on if we just scrap the NHS?!?!

1
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> Wow.

At least Lord_ash2000 put the deaths at the front of their proposal, so we can judge it for what it is.  The other poster who crops up to push this line tries to skirt around the 200,000 dead consequence.

Both posters seem remarkably optimistic about what would happen to the healthcare system and society as a whole if on the order of 200,000 extra people were to becomes seriously ill and then eventually,y die in the space of a couple of months.

I'm with DaxH's view - the lights and water would go out PDQ, along with fresh food.  At which point it's irrelevant that the NHS has been functionally destroyed by the wave of covid patients, as the medical staff are busy defending their families as best they can from the looters.

Post edited at 13:04
1
 timjones 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Sorry I missed this in my original reply.

> Your quote just about sums up many people attitude, because it's not about OUR OWN mortality is it?

> It's about maybe having the disease, and not knowing, and passing it on to OTHER people.

> If it just affected the individual, then fair enough do whatever you want, but more likely than not you'll be killing someone other than yourself, you do get that, right?

Of course I get it BUT THINK ON THIS if you act responsibly and take precautions how does anyone else get to kill you?

Maybe we need to be more responsible for own actions rather than trying to frighten others into keeping us safe?

4
 Neil Williams 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I'm with DaxH's view - the lights and water would go out PDQ, along with fresh food. 

I don't think it would be great, but I think that's gross hyperbole.

 Blunderbuss 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

What sort of psychological scar do you think that would leave on our nation as we watched our health service collapse and the army digging mass pits to shovel bodies into? 

Not to mention the economy would literally fall to pieces.... 

 timjones 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Timmd:

The problem is that having idiots constantly parroting the same tired old lines to try and frighten others does nothing to make me less gloomy. If they didn't  frighten people into acting as the parrots believe they should 6 months ago they are not going to succeed today.  All they do is cause offence to people who are already complying in order to allay other peoples fears.

1
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't think it would be great, but I think that's gross hyperbole.

Last time round when we weren't controlling cases, the French PM threatened to close the border with us if we didn't take more action.  How much of our food comes in through Dover?  What do you think would happen with 10x the prevalence of cases in a "let it rip" scenario?

Last time round, when we weren't controlling cases, there was a mass wave of school closures driven by staff absence as teachers voted with their feet.   What do you think would happen with 10x the prevalence of cases in a "let it rip" scenario?  

When everyone knows multiple people who are incapacitated by COVID and are unable to receive healthcare because hospitals are overloaded, and when all babies are being born at home without healthcare and many saveable births are being lost, and when nobody can receive cancer treatment because of the overload, what do you think will happen?

When more and more medical staff are dying due to the high viral loads on the wards with 6,000 people dying a day, what do you think will happen?

I could go on.  I don't think it's at all unlikely that we'd end up pretty rapidly at serious civil disorder.  Except we wouldn't because any conceivable government would chicken out well before that point.

Think of the panic buying when cases were at 1/6th of the level we'd see if we "let it rip".

Post edited at 13:18
1
 neilh 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You sound like somebody from the Nazi party and their attempts to create a superior Aryan race with the phrases " let the weak die off".

Maybe time for you to step back and have a think about what you are saying.

Oh and give or take a few things the UK Gov is doing more or less what just about every other developed country is doing.Somthings could be better. somethings worse, but its broadly the same.

Post edited at 13:33
1
 Timmd 25 Sep 2020
In reply to timjones:

To be honest I 'tune out' what they're saying to a certain degree, and carry on with being careful so that I'm less worried/find it easier to be chilled. I get on with being careful and wait for things to eventually resolve (at some point in time), since there's not much else I can do.

It would be nice to see more people, but it's an approach which works for me...

Post edited at 13:33
 Jon Stewart 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

People of that mindset have totally failed to imagine the consequences of the collapse of normal life if that many people become severely ill at once. 

Businesses cannot survive without health service, transport, schools etc. 

My objection to this viewpoint isn't merely a moral one (obviously its repugnant, but that won't bother you). It's that it's just nonsense. You can't run businesses while people are being shovelled into mass graves. It's the most despicable, stupid thing I've ever heard "let the weak die, I'm alright Jack". You won't be. You don't understand it, but you *are* dependent on the rest of society. Letting it collapse into chaos will screw you too. 

1
 Mike Stretford 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> There would naturally still be significant disruption to businesses when the virus is rife, with people being off ill and possible customers voluntarily isolating etc. but it would never be as bad as forcing everyone to isolate regardless in another lockdown. It's basically, let 3-5 hundred thousand die rather than spending X 100 billions of pounds keeping some of them alive another few years. As a quick reference £100,000,000,000 for 500,000 people is £200,000 per person, multiply as required depending on the final cost of this. 

You obviously have a totally unrealistic view of the impact of 'letting it rip', no doubt influenced by your politics.

The really sad thing is, when you look at Japan or Germany (comparable countries to us unlike Sweden), it should be obvious that this 'harsh lockdown' vs 'let it rip' isn't a choice we even have to face. If people would just do the basics we could get on with life near to normal. But no, there's too many idiots here..... egged on by right wing 'thinkers' who from day 1 politicised a fecking virus.

1
 Timmd 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I think you're misunderstanding what people who want to return to normal ASAP actually want to happen. The general gist is, let it rip, let the weak die off and the rest of us can get on with life, no lockdowns, minimal if any restrictions. 

> I'm not saying I'd 100% go with the above, but I'm certainly leaning much more towards that side of things and can certainly see why people would view things that way. Instead, though, we'll just watch the government spend another 100 billion or two, get infection rates down again until spring when we open up again and watch it rates go back up as they are now. 

It's rather callous as a point of view, given that people are feverishly working on vaccines. The weak aren't only 'the elderly who are no use anymore (!)', it's people with compromised immune systems of all ages, and uses to society*.

* Even if they aren't 'useful', they're still as worthwhile as yourself, regarding deserving to exist - as one might put it.

Post edited at 13:45
 GrahamD 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I think you rather underestimate what would happen if all supermarket staff were simultaneously off sick for a week or two, or police, or just about any other worker.

1
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

I refer to this scenario as "The Purge: Covid".

 jkarran 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't know - I'm not SM savvy at all, this is my only use. I don't use twitter or facebook. What about 5G conspiracies? Is that orchestrated for a purpose, or just a load of old shit that gains popularity?

I've never understood 5G conspiracy in that it appears to be both, a mix of potty delusion and predatory orchestrated action. Likewise antivax and now antimask. What's the motive, are they related movement's pushed by the same group(s) to the same end(s)? I can never get past the idea it's too apparently organised and homogenous to be wholly organic but the motive... it makes little sense in isolation and viewed from a distance it just looks like random opportunistic wrecking, weakening a society and it's ability to act cohesively and strategically one stupid little idea at a time. It's possible of course I'm seeing more here than there really is, that this is just an emergent property of 'social media', the removal of nearly all bars to publishing anything and everything, the algorithmic feeding frenzy polarisation and conflict brings advertisers making them the accidental sponsors of fights they have no skin in.

You're right, for these ideas to take they need to readily appeal to a subgroup so I'm not sure you and wintertree are miles apart on this, for most people sucked into one of these idea wars it's not deliberate, it just chimes with them but there does appear to be a framework of sorts under it all propping up bad ideas long enough that they can become established. Take Islamic state as an example, there is a leadership of sorts and there is the shadowy machinery of control largely through propaganda but on the street it looks like people coming together with similar crazy ideas, feeding on material they 'find' then go on to re-create and amplify online, radicalising themselves and each other, it's both organic and orchestrated and utterly malign.

jk

 Timmd 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

If Lord_Ash2000 turned out to be one of the weaker people by a quirk of fate it would be rather ironic.

It's not a bad place to start from in developing some empathy and compassion...'What if it was me?'...

My being more at risk from regular flu, and jabs being recommended, it's not implausible that covid may be similar.

I wouldn't like to get this thread archived, so I'll probably leave it at that...

Post edited at 15:15
 Lord_ash2000 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I refer to this scenario as "The Purge: Covid".

I'm just telling you what the viewpoint of a lot of people who want to let it rip is. As it seems most seem to not even to be considering this avenue when trying to understand the mentality of people who say "let it rip".

You guys were all like "but then it'll just spread and we'll need another lockdown, duh!" But that isn't the plan being proposed, the plan is to let nature take its course and let it thin our old, weak and sickly herd leaving behind the fit and healthy then covid won't be an issue anymore. It's a brutalist approach but it's simple, relatively cheap and fairly quick when compared to the alternatives.

I've just giving you guys an insight into the mindset of a not insignificant number of people in the UK as I think some of you, by not even acknowledging it exists are sitting here baffled why people don't want to drag this out longer than needed and feeling the need to explain why XYZ approach will cause a lot of deaths etc. They know it will and they are okay with that. 

3
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I understand the mindset being proposed, and I've seen a poster argue for it with utter conviction they are right.  I just don't believe for one moment that what they are arguing for would actually play out like they think.

> You guys were all like "but then it'll just spread and we'll need another lockdown, duh!" But that isn't the plan being proposed,

I understand that's not what they're proposing, but I think that's what will happen.  It ignores what many different people think will go on to happen, which includes either widespread collapse of the health system or another lockdown.  Take the slums of Brazil for example where drug gangs started enforcing a lockdown and food distribution in the absence of government action.  They recognised what was bad for their production and sales business.  Others will too.  Quite aside from the large number of people who aren't secret eugenics fans who are going to come out in horror.

> the plan is to let nature take its course and let it thin our old, weak and sickly herd leaving behind the fit and healthy then covid won't be an issue anymore. It's a brutalist approach but it's simple, relatively cheap and fairly quick when compared to the alternatives.

"Simple"?  

What're we going to do with the ten thousand of people a day requiring intensive health to realise what is now perhaps a 50% chance of living?  Collapse the healthcare system to try and save them, or isolate them in death camps? 

> I've just giving you guys an insight into the mindset of a not insignificant number of people in the UK as I think some of you, 

No, I understand that there are people with that mindset.  I've understood that for many months.

> by not even acknowledging it exists

I obviously acknowledged it

> are sitting here baffled why people don't want to drag this out longer than needed and feeling the need to explain why XYZ approach will cause a lot of deaths etc.

It's not that it will cause a lot of deaths, it's that I strongly believe it will eventually cause more economic damage than our current status quo which is reasonably open and was improving before people started to give up on control measures 

> They know it will and they are okay with that. 

They don't know it, they think they know what will happen.  Given the utter inability I've seen from the true proponents of it on UKC to acknowledge even the most basic counter point I am left with the firm opinion they are either too stupid to be allowed to make decisions for others, or they are lying for some other reason. 

As I said to that poster, I think they want the moon on a stick, don't have a plan to get it, and don't understand that the moon would crush them to death once they had it. 

Post edited at 15:29
1
 Lord_ash2000 25 Sep 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> I think you rather underestimate what would happen if all supermarket staff were simultaneously off sick for a week or two, or police, or just about any other worker.

We are surprisingly adaptive if pushed. Firstly all supermarket staff, for example, won't be off ill. Most cases in the under 50's (ie most of the workforce) are mild to asymptomatic and the population won't all get it at once, as people have said, even an uncontrolled spread is still going to take months before heard immunity takes real effect. As new people get ill, others will be returning, recovered. 

And if things really did get short at supermarkets, working on the checkouts or warehouse work is hardly difficult, we could easily get volunteers in if needed. I think we'd manage.  

 

4
 neilh 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

They are in my experience usually OK with it unitl it directly affects them or their families or friends.You see lots of this from the USA where when Covid hits, they suddenly have a wake up call to the reality.

I can understand it, its a natural reaction, especially if you are losing your job.

The worst guy I know on this subject actually runs a social care business. The perverse logic of running a care in the community business and saying let it rip like you propose  is quite dark in my view.

 neilh 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

So I can put your name forward as a volunteer checkout worker?Christ, heaven forbid.

 Cobra_Head 25 Sep 2020
In reply to timjones:

> Of course I get it BUT THINK ON THIS if you act responsibly and take precautions how does anyone else get to kill you?

I'll give you one example though there are myriad others, I'm taking precautions, but others aren't, the hospital staff catch it, and a good number have to have time off (at best), meanwhile others have filled the beds up in the hospital.

I fall down the stairs and bash my head, I need urgent hospital treatment, but it's full and under-staffed, I've got a brain haemorrhage and time is of the essence.

Is that enough?

 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> So I can put your name forward as a volunteer checkout worker?Christ, heaven forbid.

I'd put his name forwards for nursing duties on a Covid ward.  Let's hope they're not susceptible to the cytokine or bradykinin storm that's killing some young, health people as a few weeks in to "letting it rip" all the PPE will be gone.

1
 Cobra_Head 25 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The worst guy I know on this subject actually runs a social care business. The perverse logic of running a care in the community business and saying let it rip like you propose  is quite dark in my view.

Care homes are suffering badly at the moment, they lost some people, not just to covid, but people don't want to be in a home, like people don't want to go to hospital, so there's loads of capacity.

Obviously less capacity = greater income.

1
 Lord_ash2000 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> What're we going to do with the ten thousand of people a day requiring intensive health to realise what is now perhaps a 50% chance of living?  Collapse the healthcare system to try and save them, or isolate them in death camps? 

We would do what we did before and build temporary wards, only this time actually use them. If they reach capacity then we'd have to simply start denying treatment to say anyone say over 75 with covid symptoms. They'd just get told to stay home, get bed rest and given some basic medical advise if useful.

Medical resources would be rationed based on age and degree of difference it would make.

Mean if we can get a vaccine sorted fairly soon then that is obviously a better solution but if we can't, what do we do? We can't live as we do now forever, moving from spike to dip and back again, from lockdown to open, back to lockdown again with the seasons. It's a matter of balancing long term mild suffering against short term big suffering. It's very hard to calculate what the total net effect would be of either option as there are too many unknowns in both. But it is very easy to keep pulling the never-ending plaster off slowly because it's a pain we can cope with rather than commit to one good pull and end all pain for good.  

5
 jkarran 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> There would naturally still be significant disruption to businesses when the virus is rife, with people being off ill and possible customers voluntarily isolating etc. but it would never be as bad as forcing everyone to isolate regardless in another lockdown. It's basically, let 3-5 hundred thousand die rather than spending X 100 billions of pounds keeping some of them alive another few years. As a quick reference £100,000,000,000 for 500,000 people is £200,000 per person, multiply as required depending on the final cost of this. 

Kudos. I mean it's utterly repulsive and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of human values, how our society and economy functions and would fail to under those conditions but fair play for nailing your colours to the mast.

jk

 Lord_ash2000 25 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> So I can put your name forward as a volunteer checkout worker? Christ, heaven forbid.

If needed by all means. Mean to be honest there is no reason they couldn't be paid, there are plenty of unemployed people around right now who would be grateful for a job if one came up. 

 

1
 Lord_ash2000 25 Sep 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Kudos. I mean it's utterly repulsive and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of human values...

You know we have a government body called NICE which decides if it's worth buying drugs or using medical treatments for the NHS based on a cost per life saved? I forget now but I think it becomes not worth it at about £30k a person. 

It sounds cold because we look at friends and family and think we'd spend whatever we could do save a loved one. But you wouldn't spend whatever you can to save my loved ones would you? You don't know them, they are just random people, the same people who die every day and no one cares who doesn't know them. Not to mention that we as a society can't spend unlimited amounts of money, saving everyone humanly possible it's just not practical. The cold hard truth is, humans are one thing we have an oversupply of in this country and on a national health budget scale, the life of an 80+ year old with health conditions isn't worth very much in pounds sterling. 
 

Post edited at 15:45
5
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Medical resources would be rationed based on age and degree of difference it would make.

Correction: could make, not would make.  We don't know who the survivors will be in advance.

Okay - you have a plan which is more than the other poster does.  Basically Covid death camps, but working from home.  

I still think it will collapse the healthcare services due to likely viral load effects on medical staff.   I still think that many employers and public won't stand for it as the consequences become clear - hint:  an awful lot of debilitating sickness and even death in working aged people made much worse by viral load effects. 

>  We can't live as we do now forever, moving from spike to dip and back again, from lockdown to open, back to lockdown again with the seasons.

Nor do we really have to - the control measure were holding until mid-August and people gave up trying hard enough.  By that point they weren't at allonerous compared to a lockdown.  This failure of measures isn't happening in some other countries.  Why do you jump right ahead to mass eugenics of the weak and a cull of the old rather than considering sorting public compliance out through clear, consistent government messaging and better support for individuals to help them through this.  It's almost as if you want to cull the weak and won't even consider other options...

> Mean if we can get a vaccine sorted fairly soon then that is obviously a better solution but if we can't, what do we do?

We worry about it in 6 months time when we can judge how this winter has gone and how the vaccines are playing out.  In the mean time we don't dangle apparently simple, near magical cures in front of increasingly miserable and desperate people.  Unless we want to pave the way for a fascist demagogue.  

 neilh 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You just change your behaviour like in other pandemics and the economy adapts. Onnly 10% of the economy has been truly hit. That still leaves 90% running along.Some of that 10% economy was going to restructure anyway( retail being hard hit, but its just been brought forward and was going to happen).

Pubs. Well they use to close at 10.30. Then we became a night time economy. Now its stepped back. About 75% will adapt and survive. Our social habits will change.Just to give an example.We will all moan, but we can change.

In reply to wintertree:

> What're we going to do with the ten thousand of people a day requiring intensive health to realise what is now perhaps a 50% chance of living? 

We don't give them intensive care. We just withdraw all health care until the virus has winnowed the herd. The weak will die. The strong will survive! Onwards, to a purer Fatherland!

Mein Führer, I can walk!

1
 mik82 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> .. the population won't all get it at once, as people have said, even an uncontrolled spread is still going to take months before heard immunity takes real effect. As new people get ill, others will be returning, recovered. 

Well, the nature of exponential growth means that if it was uncontrolled, most of the population would have it in the last few weeks of spread. There'd be a few weeks of utter chaos and to be honest, I think having volunteers on checkouts would be the least of the worries.

 ebdon 25 Sep 2020
In reply to jkarran:

Is anyone else imagining lord ash stood on top of the Bowderstown waving a homemade tin foil glove with some M&Ms glued to it yelling "I AM INEVITABLE"

I mean - let the weak die?? I think that was a hit for 80s cock rock band Manowar, and frankly that's about as seriously as I can take it.


 Robert Durran 25 Sep 2020
In reply to mik82:

> Well, the nature of exponential growth means that if it was uncontrolled, most of the population would have it in the last few weeks of spread. 

I don't think that's true. There would certainly be a massive peak and then a steady decline towards herd immunity (assuming that exists). A lot would get it during the decline and some not at all.

 neilh 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I have a better idea for your volunteer role.

You can drive a JCB digger to bury the dead bodies as they stack up .Think you might find it more interesting and you can witness your ideas being put into practise.

Hell I will even buy you a new set of tyres.

 Lord_ash2000 25 Sep 2020
In reply to ebdon:

lol, even I gave that a like

And btw, before I labelled some sort of Nazi, I'm just explaining the views of the hardline let it rip people as some on here can't grasp them.

My views are closer to a controlled rip, some sort of middle ground between a full-on survival of the fittest and what we are trying to do now. A managed spread with the goal of herd immunity, if not full then at least in dense population centres. Yes more people than the minimum will need to die to achieve that and yes I'm morally okay with that for the greater good and least total suffering over the long term. 

The "Let's wait and see" approach is only going to fly for so long, either we get a vaccine or more drastic measures will gain significant traction. 

3
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> as some on here can't grasp them.

What you appear unable to grasp is that we all grasp the idea just fine.  I think however we all believe it to be unobtainable for the many and various reasons given over various threads since this first reared its ugly head in March.

> The "Let's wait and see" approach is only going to fly for so long, either we get a vaccine or more drastic measures will gain significant traction. 

Which is tragic because measures not very drastic and already in our ability were working fine until mid-August.  The more people work to undermine that by presenting some fairy tale (in the pre-disney sense) solution the more they work to polarise and stupefy people to the point the rise of fascism doesn't seem impossible.

Post edited at 16:22
1
 Neil Williams 25 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Last time round when we weren't controlling cases, the French PM threatened to close the border with us if we didn't take more action.  How much of our food comes in through Dover?  What do you think would happen with 10x the prevalence of cases in a "let it rip" scenario?

A key difference this time is that France is basically "letting it rip", near enough.

> Last time round, when we weren't controlling cases, there was a mass wave of school closures driven by staff absence as teachers voted with their feet.   What do you think would happen with 10x the prevalence of cases in a "let it rip" scenario? 

That was because we were making people isolate if they showed signs of a cold.  Testing (ha!) has the possibility to make that different.

> When everyone knows multiple people who are incapacitated by COVID and are unable to receive healthcare because hospitals are overloaded, and when all babies are being born at home without healthcare and many saveable births are being lost, and when nobody can receive cancer treatment because of the overload, what do you think will happen?

> When more and more medical staff are dying due to the high viral loads on the wards with 6,000 people dying a day, what do you think will happen?

With proper PPE?

> I could go on.  I don't think it's at all unlikely that we'd end up pretty rapidly at serious civil disorder.  Except we wouldn't because any conceivable government would chicken out well before that point.

> Think of the panic buying when cases were at 1/6th of the level we'd see if we "let it rip".

That's called "idiots".  At no point during the previous situation did food shops close.

 Neil Williams 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I don't think that's true. There would certainly be a massive peak and then a steady decline towards herd immunity (assuming that exists). A lot would get it during the decline and some not at all.

FWIW, if it doesn't exist, neither does a vaccine.  They both work basically the same way.

That would leave a treatment as the only option.

 Robert Durran 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> FWIW, if it doesn't exist.

Do we know that?

 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> FWIW, if it doesn't exist, neither does a vaccine. 

That is a totally unjustified statement in my opinion.   Some reasons include

  • Vacine delivery can be far more time synchronised than infections in a natural herd immunity scenario - this weakens the implications for gradual loss of immunity for any reasons.  
  • Adjuvants can boost the immune development process for a vaccine differently to viral exposure  
  • See a recent post from cb264 on how this virus disrupts the immune systems’ responses but how an engineered vaccine presents the same stimuli to the immune system without actively disabling its responses.
In reply to Neil Williams:

> That was because we were making people isolate if they showed signs of a cold.  Testing (ha!) has the possibility to make that different

Your 'ha' notwithstanding, aren't we being told not to request a test if we've just got 'signs of a cold'? Because the f*ckwits couldn't intersect two straight lines to predict the point at which demand would outstrip supply, or that opening up the economy, schools & universities might just cause an increase in disease transmission (both of covid and other respiratory infections).

> At no point during the previous situation did food shops close.

You may have missed wintertree's estimate that cases might be six times what we experienced in the first wave. Which might just break the retail system.

 Timmd 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> lol, even I gave that a like

> And btw, before I labelled some sort of Nazi, I'm just explaining the views of the hardline let it rip people as some on here can't grasp them.

> My views are closer to a controlled rip, some sort of middle ground between a full-on survival of the fittest and what we are trying to do now. A managed spread with the goal of herd immunity, if not full then at least in dense population centres. Yes more people than the minimum will need to die to achieve that and yes I'm morally okay with that for the greater good and least total suffering over the long term. 

How about if it turns out to be you who is one of the 'more people than the minimum'?

Post edited at 18:20
mick taylor 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

There are 5.5 million people aged 75+ and millions with health problems. Reckon most of these would be shit scared with the Let It Rip approach coz huge numbers of them would die a horrible death (this invented figure of a few hundred thousands is guesswork nonesense).

 Lead dnf 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> "The problem with a pandemic or an epidemic infection like this is if I as an individual increase my risk, I increase the risk to everyone around me and then everyone who’s a contact of theirs, and sooner or later the chain will meet people who are vulnerable or elderly or have a long term problem from Covid."

Nope, he's not referring to the "protect the vulnerable" approach, you are choosing to infer that.

> Edit: this message was then given the political treatment by Johnson, advised by the err, chief scientific adviser, where he directly rebutted the "protect the vulnerable"approach:

> "And as for the suggestion that we should simply lock up the elderly and the vulnerable – with all the suffering that would entail – I must tell you that this is just not realistic, because if you let the virus rip through the rest of the population it would inevitably find its way through to the elderly as well, and in much greater numbers."

Well if Boris says so it must be true. I'm sure if I go back through your posts on these forums I'll find your trust in Boris Johnson to be entirely consistent.

2
 wintertree 25 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> A key difference this time is that France is basically "letting it rip", near enough.

  1. France has cases growing at about 7% per day, it's about 5% per day in the UK.  At a guess, "let it rip" is closer to 15% I reckon.  The situation in France and the UK is very similar apart from a matter of time.
  2. The decision to cut links is not about the growth rate of cases but about the absolute number.  If the absolute number in the UK is much higher than in France, they cut the link.  It would only work if we both let rip and somehow lorry drivers were exempt from the sick period and the longer term weaknesses being observed...

> That was because we were making people isolate if they showed signs of a cold.  Testing (ha!) has the possibility to make that different.

No, I think it was because a lot of teachers did not want to go to work and catch Covid.  The more we learn about it's effects on people aged > 40, the more I think they made a good call.

> With proper PPE?

We couldn't supply it for a few weeks for hospitalisations at 1/6 of the level of a "let it rip" scenario.  I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise.

> That's called "idiots".  At no point during the previous situation did food shops close.

I'm not sure they were all idiots by any means.  There was a public threat from the French PM to imminently sever our main food import link, and people were very scared and scared people fall back on primal instincts.  They had also been told that if they got the virus they would not be allowed to leave their house for 14 days, so suddenly 2 weeks of normal shopping has to happen in days to prepare for that.   


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...