Jump to content


  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

581 Very Good

About dsr-burnley

  • Rank
    First Team

Recent Profile Visitors

1,961 profile views
  1. Is that mint to be funny? Chews another subject.
  2. That's not the issue. The issue isn't whether the government is justified in being totalitarian, the issue is whether it is being totalitarian. "Totalitarian" is a government that exercises a high degree of control over public and private life. You can argue either way whether this one is. What mildly got my goat was Line-X's utter contempt for someone who doesn't share his views on what constitutes totalitarian.
  3. The government has passed laws, still in force, to dictate who I can hug and in what circumstances. Is there not a totalitarian aspect to that? If it were to be announced that North Korea were to allow people to meet their mothers as long as it it is outdoors, but they cannot touch them at all; except as a special concession, you can hold hands with someone who is dying - would we be thinking what a liberal society North Korea is? The government has passed laws that control every aspect of my life. Where I work, when I can go to work, who I can meet, where I can eat and shop, wh
  4. Might it be because when it was a brand new disease that they knew nothing about, they didn't know whether it spread outdoors or not?
  5. Two questions. 1. There are several coronaviruses that affect humans. I think I've heard that it's seven including this one, but it's definitely several. Do we have to guard against mutations in all of them, or just in this one? 2. Timescale. Presumably to vaccinate the world, you're thinking years rather than months. Smallpox, which was a much more stable virus, took 30 years to eliminate. How long should your variant of lockdown carry on for, would you think?
  6. I have seen somewhere that they have given 30 million J&J vaccinations so far.
  7. I'm not sure it was that, more that the UK didn't know which vaccine was going to succeed so they committed to buying all of them. The idea being that price wasn't really relevant, just buy them all. With AstraZeneca specifically, the UK funded the research both directly through government and indirectly through Oxford University, AND committed to buying a hundred million doses at price to be agreed later even if it didn't work. So AstraZeneca could throw resources at it knowing they weren't going to lose out. The EU was more cautious. They didn't want to waste money, so they w
  8. Exactly. Taking the pill for 10 years has a 1% chance of causing blood clots, but that is tolerated because of the greater health risk of pregnancy; and of course the societal and financial risk of lower numbers of unwanted pregnancies. Ditto this vaccine. There is a possibility that it causes small numbers of blood clots, but if there is no alternative is is blindingly obvious that taking it is wise. If there is a choice of vaccine, and all 10m or so 20-30 year olds take the non-AZ vaccine and it saves 3 or 4 lives, then hooray for that. But as the AZ results show a reduction in blood cl
  9. Which is of course why no parent on earth would ever buy a car for their children or let them take driving lessons. Because they know that the "lethal bullet" of driving a car gives a greater than 1 in 400,000 chance of death in the young, so few if any young people are allowed to drive. Or are they? Incidentally, about 1 out of every 30,000 people between 20 and 30 have died of coronavirus. If your 1-in-400,000 bullet saves you from a 1-in-30,000 chance, the question becomes a bit different. If we have plenty of all sorts of vaccine, then perhaps they can
  10. We can look forward to seeing if you have the charisma to carry it off.
  11. Well done. There are certain national publications where the ability to condense a nuanced argument into any one-word conclusion you like is a valuable skill. Perhaps you should get a job writing for one of them.
  12. No it wouldn't. Lockdown is still causing physical, mental, and financial damage. It isn't "safe" to maintain lockdown longer than it is believed to be needed.
  13. It is possible for absolutely anyone to conclude that the roadmap is unadulterated rubbish. For someone who has no influence, it is safe as well to come to that conclusion. For someone who does has influence, it is likely to harm their career if they think that because to think that any plan is unadulterated rubbish when other sensible people think it is good, is foolish. They might think it needs a lot of improvement, but not that it has no merit at all. For someone who has decisive influence, whether it is safe to treat it as complete rubbish depends on what the results of it will be; an
  14. And my point is, the forecast you quoted was based on schools returning but few other rules being lifted would make the R number go to 1.7. Schools have returned, and as you said little else changed, and the R number has not gone to 1.7 - it has stayed at 0.8. Hence that report is wrong and its conclusions should be disregarded. They need to make a new report that does not assume a high R rate in March.
  • Create New...