Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (220 Viewers)

i know we’ve talked about it, but this article is a good overview of the criticisms of that “Declaration” saying end lockdown and the science behind it (or not).

shmmeee said:

i know we’ve talked about it, but this article is a good overview of the criticisms of that “Declaration” saying end lockdown and the science behind it (or not).

There is no ‘scientific divide’ over herd immunity

There’s a lot of talk of scientists divided over Covid-19, but when you look at the evidence any so-called divide starts to evaporate

www.wired.co.uk

Click to expand...

Stop trying to change peoples opinions with evidence

Has killed three times as many people in the U.K. this year as influenza and pneumonia combined.

skybluetony176 said:

Has killed three times as many people in the U.K. this year as influenza and pneumonia combined.

Click to expand...

Yet is anticipated to be less dangerous to under 35s than those diseases

Sky Blue Pete said:

Stop trying to change peoples opinions with evidence

Click to expand...

It’s a decent article but the problem with all of this is there is little strong scientific evidence for a lot of what’s happening and the decisions being made here and elsewhere in the world, albeit our collective knowledge is improving rapidly.

We still don’t know about immunity, which will have a huge bearing on something like the Barrington Declaration or what the impact of lockdowns will be on peoples health (mental and physical - people missing operations, screenings etc) and kids in relation to missed schooling and their own mental health. I don’t want to even think of the potential financial and health implications of 100,000s or millions of redundancies which are could take place and will be further accentuated by additional lockdowns.

Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account, however, unfortunately insufficient time has past to prove or disprove the various theories, so in the meantime we’ll have to accept (hopefully calculated) trial and error.

CCFCSteve said:

It’s a decent article but the problem with all of this is there is little strong scientific evidence for a lot of what’s happening and the decisions being made here and elsewhere in the world, albeit our collective knowledge is improving rapidly.

We still don’t know about immunity, which will have a huge bearing on something like the Barrington Declaration or what the impact of lockdowns will be on peoples health (mental and physical - people missing operations, screenings etc) and kids in relation to missed schooling and their own mental health. I don’t want to even think of the potential financial and health implications of 100,000s or millions of redundancies which are could take place and will be further accentuated by additional lockdowns.

Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account, however, unfortunately insufficient time has past to prove or disprove the various theories, so in the meantime we’ll have to accept (hopefully calculated) trial and error.

Click to expand...

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. The best data we have so far supports lockdown, the people who don’t support it don’t release papers but have press conferences funded by libertarian think tanks.

As Harford said yesterday, it’s the same tactics used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries when the science turned against their business models.

Replace immunity and mental health with human activity and natural fluctuations and your post could have been from a climate skeptic. It’s a well trodden tactic to invent or magnify a divide that doesn’t really exist and cast enough doubt to follow the policy wanted.

It’s the same anti science argument the religious make “science doesn’t know everything”. Well no, it knows that. But by definition it knows more than a bunch of paid lobbyists with an axe to grind.

chiefdave said:

Is she a reliable source? Her twitter feed looks fairly sane.

Wonder what they mean by "Not feasible to go 'shield vulnerable'", presumably that there's too many people in that group as it looks like over half the population. Good guidance would be fantastic. Between the mixed messages from our government and the lack of trust in them its hard to believe a lot of what they come out with. Perfect example in PMQs today, Johnson was asked for the science behind the 10pm pub closing and had no answer.

One tweet of hers in particular hit home for me, "Receiving notes from those w/ risk factors (asthma, overweight, hypertension, cancer survivors, diabetes) or elderly who are saddened by their lives being portrayed as worthless (ie acceptable loss, would die anyways).".

Click to expand...

Of course shielding the vulnerable, esp care homes, was going to be difficult because you can't have a completely closed system. Deliveries and supplies are needed, carers etc need to go home so there are unavoidable gaps in the protective casing and once it gets in given how the people there can't really escape it it's very difficult to stop it spreading quickly.

However we could have done more to safeguard them like, I don't know, NOT SENDING EXPECTED AND CONFIRMED CASES INTO CARE HOMES!

I've heard that they're setting up a three tier system of what to do when infection rates rise and fall. But I can't help but feel that it's the same as the 5 level plan they set up and have consistently ignored their own guidelines.

It seems obvious you set out specific things that must happen when R rate/hospital admissions/infections per 100k or whatever reach a certain level. Clear, simple instructions.
i.e.
Level 0 - pandemic has effectively passed. All businesses/events open as normal. No distancing/mask requirements. General hygiene/hand washing measures.
Level 1 - masks in all indoor setting, social distancing in public and at events, restrictions on elderly/vulnerable, checks/tests on all travellers entering the country and forced quarantine for them.
Level 2 - as level 1 + no crowds at public events inc sports, theatre, music etc. Work from home where possible. Journeys kept to minimum. No entering other homes unless totally unavoidable.
Level 3 - total lockdown. International travel heavily restricted except for freight of necessary items like food/fuel etc..

Instead we get confusing messages and caveats/exemptions for very specific things (often pursuits of the rich unsurprisingly) that do no help to anyone in knowing what they should do like group of 6 are allowed in the living room but only 2 max in any other room of the house and anyone over 6'3'' counts as two in the group but anyone under 5'0'' counts as a half.

But that is of course the point. You make it so confusing and changeable that everyone just gives up trying to understand and hey presto, oven-ready scapegoat by blaming the public for not following the guidlelines.

I still take the virus seriously, but I must say, something still doesn't add up about this.

Whenever I question the death numbers people seem to get very defensive.

Piers Morgan shared a graph today and it was meant to paint a picture of how deadly it was, but again it showed deaths and nearly all were in 65+ or with underlying health conditions.

You can understand the frustration and complacency from a lot of people. The death rates in under 65s and without underlying health conditions are so low they are almost insignificant. Something about this is well off.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Yet is anticipated to be less dangerous to under 35s than those diseases

Click to expand...

But there are more cases of them suffering from 'Long Covid' with fatigue and pain after the infection which was asymptomatic. As I suggested ages ago it needs to be more considered what the long term effects might be over the months and years. It's all very well knowing a young person isn't likely to die from Covid but if they then have years of ill health ahead of them as a consequence that's arguably even worse. The effect on their mental and physical health and the cost to the NHS of caring/treating this will dwarf any benefits of letting things carry on largely as normal for those who're younger.

Saying 'young people are largely unaffected so should be allowed to catch the disease' is a massively short-sighted and irresponsible position.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

But there are more cases of them suffering from 'Long Covid' with fatigue and pain after the infection which was asymptomatic. As I suggested ages ago it needs to be more considered what the long term effects might be over the months and years. It's all very well knowing a young person isn't likely to die from Covid but if they then have years of ill health ahead of them as a consequence that's arguably even worse. The effect on their mental and physical health and the cost to the NHS of caring/treating this will dwarf any benefits of letting things carry on largely as normal for those who're younger.

Saying 'young people are largely unaffected so should be allowed to catch the disease' is a massively short-sighted and irresponsible position.

Click to expand...

Under 35s also share houses / workspaces etc with people far over 35, too...

The mindset of the people who question what "the real truth" is and think its all a scam to control them is nuts

Deleted member 5849 said:

Under 35s also share houses / workspaces etc with people far over 35, too...

Click to expand...

This is what I don't get- how is it so hard to get it through to people that it is a highly contagious condition?

Ring Of Steel said:

The mindset of the people who question what "the real truth" is and think its all a scam to control them is nuts

Click to expand...

That must be a joke.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:

I still take the virus seriously, but I must say, something still doesn't add up about this.

Whenever I question the death numbers people seem to get very defensive.

Piers Morgan shared a graph today and it was meant to paint a picture of how deadly it was, but again it showed deaths and nearly all were in 65+ or with underlying health conditions.

You can understand the frustration and complacency from a lot of people. The death rates in under 65s and without underlying health conditions are so low they are almost insignificant. Something about this is well off.

Click to expand...

There's more to it than 'do you die or not?'. Long term implications are largely unknown but cases of young people being affected by fatigue etc after the infection are being known. They could have decades of poor health, inability to work and even premature death due to it. Is that not worthy of consideration?

I also find it a bit callous that over 65 and vulnerable/underlying conditions are almost seem as 'acceptable losses'. Some of those dying may have had decades of healthy life left. Why shouldn't they be thought of as meaningful people? They're not because they're the sectors least likely to be adding to the economy or taking more out in benefits/pensions etc and that is what matters to those in power - can we make money from you? If not you're an irrelevance.

CCFCSteve said:

It’s a decent article but the problem with all of this is there is little strong scientific evidence for a lot of what’s happening and the decisions being made here and elsewhere in the world, albeit our collective knowledge is improving rapidly.

We still don’t know about immunity, which will have a huge bearing on something like the Barrington Declaration or what the impact of lockdowns will be on peoples health (mental and physical - people missing operations, screenings etc) and kids in relation to missed schooling and their own mental health. I don’t want to even think of the potential financial and health implications of 100,000s or millions of redundancies which are could take place and will be further accentuated by additional lockdowns.

Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account, however, unfortunately insufficient time has past to prove or disprove the various theories, so in the meantime we’ll have to accept (hopefully calculated) trial and error.

Click to expand...

This is completely false- Science does not have mixed views on how to best deal with COVID. Its the various sets of people with their competing interests that are coming out with different interpretations of the science.

Ring Of Steel said:

This is what I don't get- how is it so hard to get it through to people that it is a highly contagious condition?

Click to expand...

Restricting doesn't automatically result in negative mental health. It can also have a negative affect on peoples' mental health when their opportunity to avoid situations they feel uncomfortable in is taken away from them. There can also be a negative the affect on older members of society when they can no longer receive visits from family because of the lack of restrictions elsewhere.

Ring Of Steel said:

This is completely false- Science does not have mixed views on how to best deal with COVID. Its the various sets of people with their competing interests that are coming out with different interpretations of the science.

Click to expand...

Not even different interpretations of the science just stoner level “you don’t know maaaan” stuff. If you think the suicide risk is higher. Put together a study and prove it!

Ring Of Steel said:

The mindset of the people who question what "the real truth" is and think its all a scam to control them is nuts

Click to expand...

Such patience. The guy is a complete fruit loop

shmmeee said:

Replace immunity and mental health with human activity and natural fluctuations and your post could have been from a climate skeptic. It’s a well trodden tactic to invent or magnify a divide that doesn’t really exist and cast enough doubt to follow the policy wanted.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, not quite. I was saying immunity would having a bearing on what they were saying (not that I agree with it). Which it would.

I am also saying the impact of all of the other things is currently unknown. Which it is.

The lockdown was 100% correct the first time as it was put in place to protect the nhs capacity. A further one, if not done for that reason has to quite rightly be questioned ie what’s the end goal. If the end goal is that a vaccine will almost certainly be ready late this year/early next, so short term pain (loss of jobs, other health impacts etc) is worthwhile, then again I would 100% agree. If a vaccine might not be ready for 2-3 years then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be asking whether having sporadic lockdowns until then is beneficial or not (unless it’s to protect NhS capacity)

Deleted member 5849 said:

That must be a joke.

Click to expand...

I think that you're right. It certainly makes no sense to moan about being offered information about getting a test.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:

The death rates in under 65s and without underlying health conditions are so low they are almost insignificant. Something about this is well off.

Click to expand...

What percentage of the population do you think are over 65 and / or have underlying health conditions?

Ring Of Steel said:

This is completely false- Science does not have mixed views on how to best deal with COVID. Its the various sets of people with their competing interests that are coming out with different interpretations of the science.

Click to expand...

firstly you’ve misquoted me ‘Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account’

The final part of the sentence being most relevant (Id detailed a couple of the wider considerations above ie schooling, redundancies, physical and mental health etc)

How is completely false ?! Yes, there are similar approaches but they are also some differing views....of the top of my head:

Germany - allowing limited fans to return to games
France - up to recently allowing outdoor gatherings up to 5k (I think)
Sweden - maintaining allowing gatherings up to 50 people throughout and schools open (from memory making over 12s or 14s wear masks as there is a higher risk of transmission/contagion)

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

There's more to it than 'do you die or not?'. Long term implications are largely unknown but cases of young people being affected by fatigue etc after the infection are being known. They could have decades of poor health, inability to work and even premature death due to it. Is that not worthy of consideration?

I also find it a bit callous that over 65 and vulnerable/underlying conditions are almost seem as 'acceptable losses'. Some of those dying may have had decades of healthy life left. Why shouldn't they be thought of as meaningful people? They're not because they're the sectors least likely to be adding to the economy or taking more out in benefits/pensions etc and that is what matters to those in power - can we make money from you? If not you're an irrelevance.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There's so many unknowns with this. There was a study I saw from the University of Texas last month that suggested some children who had been asymptomatic are now showing signs of MIS-C with damage to the heart so severe they will need lifelong treatment. Yet people will happily tell you kids don't get symptoms so no problem with schools being open.

The underlying conditions thing is really getting to me. I have two things that would be classed as underlying conditions however I've only had 2 days sick off work in the last 15 years so hardly at deaths door, and they are both things that with about 24 months left of treatment will be completely eliminated. Yet now I'm considered expendable.

chiefdave said:

The underlying conditions thing is really getting to me. I have two things that would be classed as underlying conditions however I've only had 2 days sick off work in the last 15 years so hardly at deaths door, and they are both things that with about 24 months left of treatment will be completely eliminated. Yet now I'm considered expendable.

Click to expand...

Likewise. Everybody in my immediate family has an underlying condition, I think.

CCFCSteve said:

firstly you’ve misquoted me ‘Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account’

The final part of the sentence being most relevant (Id detailed a couple of the wider considerations above ie schooling, redundancies, physical and mental health etc)

How is completely false ?! Yes, there are similar approaches but they are also some differing views....of the top of my head:

Germany - allowing limited fans to return to games
France - up to recently allowing outdoor gatherings up to 5k (I think)
Sweden - maintaining allowing gatherings up to 50 people throughout and schools open (from memory making over 12s or 14s wear masks as there is a higher risk of transmission/contagion)

Click to expand...

It is completely false and no I am not misquoting you. You are demonstrating my point by presenting several different decisions, not seeming to realise that those decisions are based on the same data.

That is not "science" having mixed views, it is individuals/ nations having mixed views. Science doesn't make decisions, science informs & provides evidence, it is up to people to make decisions based on that information, and those decisions are what is 'mixed' as they bring in other factors such as economies. To argue that "science has mixed views on Covid" is false.

chiefdave said:

Exactly. There's so many unknowns with this. There was a study I saw from the University of Texas last month that suggested some children who had been asymptomatic are now showing signs of MIS-C with damage to the heart so severe they will need lifelong treatment. Yet people will happily tell you kids don't get symptoms so no problem with schools being open.

The underlying conditions thing is really getting to me. I have two things that would be classed as underlying conditions however I've only had 2 days sick off work in the last 15 years so hardly at deaths door, and they are both things that with about 24 months left of treatment will be completely eliminated. Yet now I'm considered expendable.

Click to expand...

I view what is being said elsewhere slightly differently ie far from expendable, there should be increased/focussed protection for those at higher risk

As SBD indicates, care homes being a major one (and a massive fuck up in the past). For example would I rather see testing capacity focussed on potentially asymptomatic care home workers (to minimise it ever getting into care homes), rather than those of lower risk who could be asked to remain at home/self isolate (like me or school kids), yes.

Deleted member 5849 said:

Likewise. Everybody in my immediate family has an underlying condition, I think.

Click to expand...

You don't realise how truly selfish/ shortsighted some people really are until something like this happens.

CCFCSteve said:

there should be increased/focussed protection for those at higher risk

Click to expand...

But the thing is, high risk shifts according to what's being driven at.

Would somebody with chronic asthma but under 35, and therefore considered low risk on a H&S sheet, be considered an underlying condition in the stats if they were to suffer worse from it? Would someone with high blood pressure, where it's considered to be under control? Should you, therefore, move them to high risk, stop them going to work and tell them to work from home, as opposed to opening further up their job and placing them further into face-to-face contact with people who are younger still?

Ring Of Steel said:

You don't realise how truly selfish/ shortsighted some people really are until something like this happens.

Click to expand...

I think, tbf, it's lack of awareness. I'll safely say at the beginning of this I was all for carrying on as normal, and riding it out. More information emerges, however, that suggests that's not the right approach - no matter what the outliers and hope-seekers claim otherwise.

What there is, is a rhetoric that I find worrying among government, that it seems they've all forgotten their own conditions for shutting everything down again, where we've long passed that. Now, if there's a reason why we're not doing that, when following the science, they need to communicate it and, I'll listen, and if communicated well I'll shift my position again.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:

I still take the virus seriously, but I must say, something still doesn't add up about this.

Whenever I question the death numbers people seem to get very defensive.

Piers Morgan shared a graph today and it was meant to paint a picture of how deadly it was, but again it showed deaths and nearly all were in 65+ or with underlying health conditions.

You can understand the frustration and complacency from a lot of people. The death rates in under 65s and without underlying health conditions are so low they are almost insignificant. Something about this is well off.

Click to expand...

So what if its only killing the majority of elderly, they have been the backbone of this country for years, unless your selfish as fuck have some respect.

Ring Of Steel said:

It is completely false and no I am not misquoting you. You are demonstrating my point by presenting several different decisions, not seeming to realise that those decisions are based on the same data.

That is not "science" having mixed views, it is individuals/ nations having mixed views. Science doesn't make decisions, science informs & provides evidence, it is up to people to make decisions based on that information, and those decisions are what is 'mixed' as they bring in other factors such as economies. To argue that "science has mixed views on Covid" is false.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep cutting the end of my sentence then ?!! I said (again) ‘Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account’

scientists have opinions on the wider considerations and provide them to governments but I’m saying the outcomes/impact of lockdowns are currently unknown and lockdowns (based on potentially differing scientific advice) have differed in countries. I have also said our knowledge is rapidly improving which will then probably lead to more consensus approaches for example - face masks.

Also, as far as I’m aware, Swedens Covid response was/still is formed by their chief/leading epidemiologist rather than government decisions

Deleted member 5849 said:

But the thing is, high risk shifts according to what's being driven at.

Would somebody with chronic asthma but under 35, and therefore considered low risk on a H&S sheet, be considered an underlying condition in the stats if they were to suffer worse from it? Would someone with high blood pressure, where it's considered to be under control? Should you, therefore, move them to high risk, stop them going to work and tell them to work from home, as opposed to opening further up their job and placing them further into face-to-face contact with people who are younger still?

Click to expand...

Exactly. People keep throwing buzzwords around- "underlying conditions", "over 65s", "high risk"- sounds all very nice and considerate but what does it really mean? If you spent time putting together a definitive list of what it does actually mean & applied it to the population, I'm pretty sure that approaching 50% of the entire country would be on it.

CCFCSteve said:

Hmmm, not quite. I was saying immunity would having a bearing on what they were saying (not that I agree with it). Which it would.

I am also saying the impact of all of the other things is currently unknown. Which it is.

The lockdown was 100% correct the first time as it was put in place to protect the nhs capacity. A further one, if not done for that reason has to quite rightly be questioned ie what’s the end goal. If the end goal is that a vaccine will almost certainly be ready late this year/early next, so short term pain (loss of jobs, other health impacts etc) is worthwhile, then again I would 100% agree. If a vaccine might not be ready for 2-3 years then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be asking whether having sporadic lockdowns until then is beneficial or not (unless it’s to protect NhS capacity)

Click to expand...

There are noises that the way cases are increasing and now hospitalisations we could only be a few weeks away from a situation like earlier in the year in terms of NHS capacity. So shouldn't we be putting the measures in place now to prevent it? Of course if those actions prevent that capacity being used you'll get the inevitable 'harming the economy for no reason - NHS had spare capacity' noises but I'd rather that than having a totally overwhelmed system and scores of dead due to the decision made to protect the economy. Which would see those same people then complain why nothing was done to prevent it.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

There are noises that the way cases are increasing and now hospitalisations we could only be a few weeks away from a situation like earlier in the year in terms of NHS capacity. So shouldn't we be putting the measures in place now to prevent it? Of course if those actions prevent that capacity being used you'll get the inevitable 'harming the economy for no reason - NHS had spare capacity' noises but I'd rather that than having a totally overwhelmed system and scores of dead due to the decision made to protect the economy. Which would see those same people then complain why nothing was done to prevent it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, getting in early and quicker is probably better than waiting...and us being shut down for a couple of months or more.

We wait and see, of course, but the first wave was just as the weather was set to turn better, so we had a fair old time with things shut down in fairly decent months like May. November, December, January, could be hard... although of course I hope not!

CCFCSteve said:

Why do you keep cutting the end of my sentence then ?!! I said (again) ‘Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account’

scientists have opinions on the wider considerations and provide them to governments but I’m saying the outcomes/impact of lockdowns are currently unknown and lockdowns (based on potentially differing scientific advice) have differed in countries. I have also said our knowledge is rapidly improving which will then probably lead to more consensus approaches for example - face masks.

Also, as far as I’m aware, Swedens Covid response was/still is formed by their chief/leading epidemiologist rather than government decisions

Click to expand...

Wrong again, we know exactly what the impact of the first lockdown was, its available in many places to see for yourself, and we can also see what is happening now that schools/ universities etc are back.

We can also see what is coming down the track towards us, just as we could at the start of the year, and just as happened at the start of the year some people are in complete denial & trying to make out the picture is a lot more foggy than it actually is.

Its blatantly obvious whats going to happen now, and all this talk of "well there's actually low risk for me, I'm young" and "we have to protect the economy"- yeah ok, great, but be prepared for what comes with that particular set of decisions.