Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[renton]

23 minutes ago, virginton said:

It's not quite as stupid as shutting down your economy and effectively burning billions of pounds in a giant furnace every week over course of months, while still failing to achieve a lower death toll than an open society aiming at herd immunity. Which is where we are in the UK right now.

Look on the bright side, the looming no deal Brexit won't look so bad now that the industries it was gonna trash are already wrecked by Covid. 

Like trying to hide the dent in the side of your car by t-boning it with an Artic....

[The Moonster]

11 minutes ago, engelbert_humperdink said:

Herd immunity has been successful throughout history.

Could you list all the viruses which we've beaten with herd immunity? Then list the number of infected people, and the number of deaths for each of them.

[dirty dingus]

10 minutes ago, taurus said:

She wasn't too happy with the questions she was asked .

She just realised that her and the other advisors were going to get dumped with the blame.

[welshbairn]

19 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

The experts have already said there may never be a vaccine for it

Don't know where you manage to find all these dodgy experts of yours, they're certainly a niche lot. Talk about gloomy..

Edited May 19, 2020 by welshbairn

[engelbert_humperdink]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

For who? Vaccinations work together with herd immunity to protect the vulnerable who can't take the vaccine, like pregnant women. They're worried about a large outbreak of measles at the moment because immunity might be dropping below 90%, thanks to the antivaxxer community. To build up that kind of immunity without a vaccine by stopping all measures to slow it down would mean accepting a huge death toll, when a vaccine could be available in a few months.

So why should healthy people be on lockdown then if vaccinations work together with herd immunity. The vulnerable should be isolating not the healthy. Because of this we are going to be paying back to the money tree and probably years more financial instability 

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

As much as I agree with you on this,the problem with those first two graphs is that you have not included 0 on the vertical axis.

That makes it look like the drops are substantially bigger than they are.

Things are moving in the right direction but there's no need to engage in this type of abuse of statistics.

 

Reminds me of happier times

 

[Gordon EF]

This isn't 1468, we do actually have the capability to come up with some strategy that achieves (or at least works towards) herd immunity without catastrophic death tolls.

People might not think that's the way to go and that's fair enough. But let's not pretend any serious person is suggesting some kind of black plague situation where we all venture out and take our chances.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Gordon EF

[madwullie]

At the risk of being glib, "we" could just cancel HS2 right now and wipe out any financial issues. Trident and we could have world class public services coming out the arse end of this to boot, plus we could furlough well into next year barely scratching the surface. I think I read 14Bn a month to furlough?

The problem is not money, or a lack of it, its what our taxes are spent on that's the issue. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by madwullie

[engelbert_humperdink]

5 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Could you list all the viruses which we've beaten with herd immunity? Then list the number of infected people, and the number of deaths for each of them.

You know I can't. But my whole point is on why were healthy people forced into a lockdown for 8+ weeks, when the vast majority of deaths are in the vulnerable group?. This has financially fucked a lot of people and the impact on mental health will be huge. Cancer deaths will go up as people hold off going for a checkup, as will other illnesses. The whole thing is a complete shambles

[Thereisalight..]

2 minutes ago, engelbert_humperdink said:

So why should healthy people be on lockdown then if vaccinations work together with herd immunity. The vulnerable should be isolating not the healthy. Because of this we are going to be paying back to the money tree and probably years more financial instability 

You’ll never convince certain people on here. They’re set in their doom and gloom ways of “If you go out you’ll KILL ALL THE OLDIES!” 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, engelbert_humperdink said:

So why should healthy people be on lockdown then if vaccinations work together with herd immunity. The vulnerable should be isolating not the healthy. Because of this we are going to be paying back to the money tree and probably years more financial instability 

The full lock down won't be needed for much longer, just sensible precautions to slow down the spread. The idea you can let it run rampant while protecting the vulnerable is fanciful.

[renton]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

This isn't 1468, we do actually have the capability to come up with some strategy that achieves (or at least works towards) herd immunity without catastrophic death tolls.

People might not think that's the way to go and that's fair enough. But let's not pretend any serious person is suggesting some kind of black plague situation where we all venture out and take our chances.

I suppose the missing data point is exactly how much immunity time is bought by infection. 

[madwullie]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

This isn't 1468, we do actually have the capability to come up with some strategy that achieves herd immunity without catastrophic death tolls.

People might not think that's the way to go and that's fair enough. But let's not pretend any serious person is suggesting some kind of black plague situation where we all venture out and take our chances.

Engelbert is pissed with the lockdown and some poor c***s are missing transmit. The only solution is for tens of millions to die

[Thereisalight..]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Don't know where you manage to find all these dodgy experts of yours, they're certainly a niche lot. Talk about gloomy..

Newspaper articles and the news. You certainly don’t need to delete deep to find them

[madwullie]

3 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

You’ll never convince certain people on here. They’re set in their doom and gloom ways of “If you go out you’ll KILL ALL THE OLDIES!” 

His argument on the last page was that we should have polio/bubonic plague type global deaths because he's had to sit in the house for 8 weeks. It's not really a convincing viewpoint tbh

Edit: oh apologies he's also worried about cancer deaths because some people might be worried to go to their GP because of the virus

Edited May 19, 2020 by madwullie

[Detournement]

BBC News have a job centre worker on taking about stock brokers applying for UC.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug!

[D.A.F.C]

Jean Freeman getting telt on stv news.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, renton said:

I suppose the missing data point is exactly how much immunity time is bought by infection. 

Yep. True.

The best outcome's going to get reached when folk making decisions are willing to change the strategy when the data changes.

[coprolite]

27 minutes ago, engelbert_humperdink said:

Herd immunity has been successful throughout history, no doubt safer than taking a vaccine in 18 months time. The deaths have been tragic but we can't wrap healthy people up in cotton wool. Not to sound horrid bust the vast majority of deaths were people with underlying health issues that another possible infection could lead to death. The numbers are inflated because the government purposely sent bed blocking elderly patients back into care homes with no testing and little to no PPE for staff, basically the modern day equivalent of Stalin's work camps. Younger care workers dying would probably be accounted to the Virus load. There was no need imo for these levels of hysteria.  

The government knew fine well before the virus arrived here the vulnerable groups but instead of protecting them, they were thrown to the lions resulting in needless deaths. Because of this for the last 8 weeks the freedoms and the security of healthy people has been taken away from them. Vulnerable people should have been isolated and the rest allowed to go on as normal to build herd immunity.

It's actually really easy to wrap people up in cotton wool and if they're healthy it's probably easier because they can help you.

[engelbert_humperdink]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

The full lock down won't be needed for much longer, just sensible precautions to slow down the spread. The idea you can let it run rampant while protecting the vulnerable is fanciful.

The full lockdown was never needed. Vulnerable people stay isolated, whilst the non vulnerable build up her immunity how is that fanciful. Care homes were left to themselves, not that the private care homes would care as more money, even though it could be compared to buying a goldfish with many dying