Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

we are not going to beat this virus, no matter how many times or how hard we lock down it is not going away, it will be waiting for us when we start coming out again. Unfortunately, the only way we get back to normal is to allow this thing to run its course.

It's not even known if it does "run its course", immunity might not even last. 

 

Let's say it does last and herd immunity is going to work, you can't just throw the shackles off. It will devastate a percentage of the population and health services. What you suggest is exactly what we're doing with an attempt to keep control. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It's not even known if it does "run its course", immunity might not even last. 

 

Let's say it does last and herd immunity is going to work, you can't just throw the shackles off. It will devastate a percentage of the population and health services. What you suggest is exactly what we're doing with an attempt to keep control. 

Babylon for PM!

(Prime Minister not personal message)

👍

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky news today:
 

UK at a 'tipping point' where 'more measures' could follow

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is next on the show, and says the UK is at a "tipping point" where people face a choice - either everyone follows the coronavirus restrictions or there will be "more measures".

Would you report on someone for breaching isolation, he's asked?

"Yes - and everybody should... Everybody has got a part to play in this."

Sophy Ridge asks what the data shows about how much people are following the rules?

People have got more relaxed over the summer and I understand that because we're all human but now is the moment for everyone to snap back to firmly following the rules, Mr Hancock says, admitting he's "worried" people aren't anymore.

If you've been asked to self-isolate you either have COVID-19 or it's "highly likely" you do, he adds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of the original lockdown was to buy us some time for the nhs to cope with a possible second wave latter in the year, I.e. now, and give some support so our frailing economy stood a chance of recovering. we built  the nightingale hospitals around the country, bought all those ventilators and trained all those staff , the army included, as well as stocked up on medical supplies. That to me seemed a very good idea but did I dream all that, did it really happen, because now we are approaching that second wave, allegedly, we’re talking about another lockdown and fining people 10 grand if they don’t obey the wishes of Karen ringing you up to say a pupil in little Johnny’s class has been tested positive and because you visited the same McDonald’s as his little sister, you have to sit at home in your Jim jams , eat hob nobs all day and worry about going back to a workplace that won’t be there because everyone else has been contacted by Karen and they should also stay at home. Who thought that Fvckin plan up?? 
But the most annoying thing is, we have to sit there watching piers Morgan and Gary Fvckin lineker in a studio full of people telling us that we’re all clowns for disobeying the rules, whilst on 1.25 million quid that we have to stump up.

Edited by yorkie1999
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Sky news today:
 

UK at a 'tipping point' where 'more measures' could follow

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is next on the show, and says the UK is at a "tipping point" where people face a choice - either everyone follows the coronavirus restrictions or there will be "more measures".

Would you report on someone for breaching isolation, he's asked?

"Yes - and everybody should... Everybody has got a part to play in this."

 

Do you reckon Hancock would report a fellow MP for breaching measures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I also think you're under-estimating the risk to the young. Their risk of death is very low, but not their risk of long-Covid....chronic breathing problems, long-term heart damage, propensity to blood clots causing strokes etc.....for all ages.

 

That's something I have only heard anecdotal evidence about.  Have you got figures for the risk of long-term covid effects?  Where did you see that their risk is not low?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Hancock needs a strong drink after this.  As expected he has quoted Spain and tells us the enforcement in Oldham needs to improve!

I wonder if anyone’s told him that people in the north of England catch colds and flu’s a lot, mainly due to it being a cold and wet place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The whole point of the original lockdown was to buy us some time for the nhs to cope with a possible second wave latter in the year, I.e. now, and give some support so our frailing economy stood a chance of recovering. we built  the nightingale hospitals around the country, bought all those ventilators and trained all those staff , the army included, as well as stocked up on medical supplies. That to me seemed a very good idea but did I dream all that, did it really happen, because now we are approaching that second wave, allegedly, we’re talking about another lockdown and fining people 10 grand if they don’t obey the wishes of Karen ringing you up to say a pupil in little Johnny’s class has been tested positive and because you visited the same McDonald’s as his little sister, you have to sit at home in your Jim jams , eat hob nobs all day and worry about going back to a workplace that won’t be there because everyone else has been contacted by Karen and they should also stay at home. Who thought that Fvckin plan up??

I get what you are saying but I think the govt are having to take draconian measures because elements of the British public are generally so bloody stupid

I’m on holiday at the moment and seeing tons of people sat inside in pubs, not socially distancing, not wearing face masks and (honestly) just socialising as though Covid has ever happened 

HOWEVER... two points

1. Yes, you could say that pub landlords should be imposing strict rules but if they did, and something kicked off, where are the police to attend to back this up? And would the landlord be supported by other punters in the pub at the time?

I don’t think so......

2. The real problem has been lack of enforcement of ‘the rules’. Even with more strict measures, we don’t have the police to enforce them, or strong local government to prosecute people 

 

The rules have been confusing and often unenforceable. And elements of the British public know this and exploit it

 

As I posted earlier, there are STILL some Neanderthals who refuse to accept there even is a problem 

The govt have done things to try to tackle Covid, some right and some wrong

But there are parts of British society that are just plain dumb, which has not helped anyone

Thus notion of ‘we are all in it together’ is bollox. 
We should be.... the reality is we aren’t 

Edited by Col city fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's something I have only heard anecdotal evidence about.  Have you got figures for the risk of long-term covid effects?  Where did you see that their risk is not low?

There ain’t any figures yet because we haven’t got to the long term bit yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Pity Marr didn't question Hancock over the reliability of the tests.  There's plenty of scientific belief out there that they are not all that accurate.  Under strain and full to bursting surely the accuracy of the testing has to come under question.

No one who’s part of the same gravy train is going to question the science. Science follows the funding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

No one who’s part of the same gravy train is going to question the science. Science follows the funding.

I must have missed the legion of filthy rich scientists that would be a corroboration for this.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Babylon said:

It's not even known if it does "run its course", immunity might not even last. 

 

Let's say it does last and herd immunity is going to work, you can't just throw the shackles off. It will devastate a percentage of the population and health services. What you suggest is exactly what we're doing with an attempt to keep control. 

It's not an unknown though is it.  Sweden haven't done too badly with the herd immunity plan. 

If immunity doesn't last we are not going to get rid of it, do you suggest we hide forever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fun story, apologies if you've heard similar elsewhere.

 

Wife's colleague (senior healthcare professional) attempts to book COVID-19 test in Leicester. Website says no availability in Leicester. There are appointments, however, in Aberdeen.

 

Just out of interest, then checks availability pretending to live in Aberdeen postcode.  No availability there, but there are spaces in - wait for it - Leicester

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

No one who’s part of the same gravy train is going to question the science. Science follows the funding.

Oh Jesus wept - must we really go through this again and again? The entire basis of the scientific method is to falsify, that's how science works. I might need to bump my original reply to you, because I can't be bothered to type it over and over and over again, Science is axiomatic - and has a voice of its own.  No doubt funding can have a vested interest and industry can set an agenda, and the science may as you said "follow" this  because the funding is far more substantial than QR sources - but the best science and the breakthroughs chase the funding, they don't follow it. Also, have you any idea how complex the nature of contemporary funding is even for for a Post Graduate Researcher not to mention a Post Doctoral Fellow/Early Career Researcher, an established academic and even a Research lead institution? Do understand the many sources beyond UKRI or industry? Of course you don't. 

 

For every researcher, every scientist, every academic institution, research is measured by impact and that is not simply in terms of its financial worth or tangible ability to attract funding. Scientific research must demonstrate that it is not only complimenting and adding to the existing corpus of knowledge and publications, but progressing and moving the subject area forward, that there is utilitarian value, that it is ethical in its execution and also its aims of objectives and that there are beneficiaries. 

 

The suggestion that entire branches of science the world over are collectively co opted and coerced by corporate interest is not only absurd but borderline online conspiracy nut job rhetoric. As I attempted to explain to you last time you parroted this nonsense, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate interest. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I honestly aspire to have the same level of certainty about topics that are wholly uncertain as a fair few of the contributors to this thread.

 

I'm not sure why but it really seems to just work better that way for them.

 

Aye, the absence of doubt is really something and I just feel their points would have more gravitas if they conceded some doubt. People can take any number of coherent positions about the extent of the actions we take but their arguments are instantly weakened by the absence of doubt and could be strengthened by embracing ambiguity.

 

Of course, the plan of campaign would be different if you knew everything about the long-term effects, how long immunity lasts, if a vaccine is 2 months or 5 years away etc.

 

Even if in future times it is shown that a different approach would have yielded 'better' results, it doesn't mean the approach opted for at the time was wrong either. We're dealing with an unprecedented event and little scientific certainty on a number of key variables so being cautious and treading carefully is reasonable. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Oh Jesus wept - must we really go through this again and again? The entire basis of the scientific method is to falsify, that's how science works. I might need to bump my original reply to you, because I can't be bothered to type it over and over and over again, Science is axiomatic - and has a voice of its own.  No doubt funding can have a vested interest and industry can set an agenda, and the science may as you said "follow" this  because the funding is far more substantial than QR sources - but the best science and the breakthroughs chase the funding, they don't follow it. Also, have you any idea how complex the nature of contemporary funding is even for for a Post Graduate Researcher not to mention a Post Doctoral Fellow/Early Career Researcher, an established academic and even a Research lead institution? Do understand the many sources beyond UKRI or industry? Of course you don't. 

 

For every researcher, every scientist, every academic institution, research is measured by impact and that is not simply in terms of its financial worth or tangible ability to attract funding. Scientific research must demonstrate that it is not only complimenting and adding to the existing corpus of knowledge and publications, but progressing and moving the subject area forward, that there is utilitarian value, that it is ethical in its execution and also its aims of objectives and that there are beneficiaries. 

 

The suggestion that entire branches of science the world over are collectively co opted and coerced by corporate interest is not only absurd but borderline online conspiracy nut job rhetoric. As I attempted to explain to you last time you parroted this nonsense, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate interest. 

 

 

Can we "pin" a post so that everyone who reads this thread must read that post first?

 

Because if we can, this one should be right there. :appl:

 

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Aye, the absence of doubt is really something and I just feel their points would have more gravitas if they conceded some doubt. People can take any number of coherent positions about the extent of the actions we take but their arguments are instantly weakened by the absence of doubt and could be strengthened by embracing ambiguity.

 

Of course, the plan of campaign would be different if you knew everything about the long-term effects, how long immunity lasts, if a vaccine is 2 months or 5 years away etc.

 

Even if in future times it is shown that a different approach would have yielded 'better' results, it doesn't mean the approach opted for at the time was wrong either. We're dealing with an unprecedented event and little scientific certainty on a number of key variables so being cautious and treading carefully is reasonable. 

Unfortunately there seems to be a rather large school of thought right now that stipulates that any sign of doubt is a weakness and weakness is bad, so it can't be shown. Even on issues where doubt is clearly self-evident.

 

It's ego-driven and given how it lends itself to often flawed decision making, it has the potential to be hugely counterproductive both now and for the future - and yet, such attitudes remain very much prevalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

It's not an unknown though is it.  Sweden haven't done too badly with the herd immunity plan. 

If immunity doesn't last we are not going to get rid of it, do you suggest we 

Yes it is unknown, it’s not known how long immunity lasts. There are reinfection cases.

 

Sweden has a high death rate per capita. And it’s still early days.

 

I suggest we let the scientist study it, understand it and inform the decisions we make.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I get what you are saying but I think the govt are having to take draconian measures because elements of the British public are generally so bloody stupid

I’m on holiday at the moment and seeing tons of people sat inside in pubs, not socially distancing, not wearing face masks and (honestly) just socialising as though Covid has ever happened 

HOWEVER... two points

1. Yes, you could say that pub landlords should be imposing strict rules but if they did, and something kicked off, where are the police to attend to back this up? And would the landlord be supported by other punters in the pub at the time?

I don’t think so......

2. The real problem has been lack of enforcement of ‘the rules’. Even with more strict measures, we don’t have the police to enforce them, or strong local government to prosecute people 

 

The rules have been confusing and often unenforceable. And elements of the British public know this and exploit it

 

As I posted earlier, there are STILL some Neanderthals who refuse to accept there even is a problem 

The govt have done things to try to tackle Covid, some right and some wrong

But there are parts of British society that are just plain dumb, which has not helped anyone

Thus notion of ‘we are all in it together’ is bollox. 
We should be.... the reality is we aren’t 

Your last sentence is the crux of the matter, which even on here reflects the widening gap in opinions.

As I mentioned earlier generally the older retired generation will want lockdown and added precautions as they have no mortgage to pay or job to hang on to, their health and avoiding the virus being first and foremost in their thoughts.

Whereas younger people have mortgages,  are worried about their employment etc and those things are driving their need to get the country back to some kind of normality.

This is a generalisation I know but most people will always think what is best for themselves hence the split in opinions.

 

And yes there are plenty of dumb people around not helping anyone.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's something I have only heard anecdotal evidence about.  Have you got figures for the risk of long-term covid effects?  Where did you see that their risk is not low?

 

The evidence is often imprecise. By definition, I suppose it's hard to have good hard data about the long-term impact of something that's only been around for 6 months.

Especially if many long-Covid patients are staying at home & consulting their GP & others presenting at hospital with apparently unrelated conditions (heart issues etc.).

 

This one, written by a GP, caught my attention:  https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/09/why-low-risk-population-could-be-care-homes-scandal-new-covid-outbreak

"We now know that for anywhere between 5 and 10 per cent of patients, Covid-19 becomes a chronic disease, relapsing and remitting for months on end. There are ongoing respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, and profound fatigue, heart rhythm disturbances, life-threatening blood clot formation, and debilitating abnormalities of the nervous system. While some “long Covid” patients do recover, many have not as yet. Most are frightened about the future, and enervated by being a “medical mystery” for whom no one can give definitive explanations, advice or prognosis. The demographics of “long Covid” are very different from those for hospitalisation and mortality; if anything, younger people appear disproportionately affected. And instances of relapsing-remitting disease are independent of severity – the majority of sufferers were never unwell enough to be admitted to hospital at any stage".

 

Also....

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

"Around 10% of mild coronavirus (COVID-19) cases who were not admitted to hospital have reported symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. A number of hospitalised cases reported continuing symptoms for 8 or more weeks following discharge".

[Followed by long list of long-Covid issues, many of them serious: e.g. heart failure, liver & kidney dysfunction, clotting disorders]

 

https://post.parliament.uk/short-and-long-term-health-effects-of-covid-19/

"It is still unclear how many people are affected by long COVID symptoms, or how long they last. Importantly, long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be experienced by the entire range of COVID-19 patients, from those who show no common symptoms of COVID-19 to severe cases. Given that some of these symptoms emerge late, sometimes people experiencing them no longer test positive for the virus. An Italian study of 143 hospitalised patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported that 87.4% of them experienced at least one COVID-19-related symptom 2 months after symptom onset. A US-based study on 292 mild COVID-19 cases reported that 35% of them didn’t fully recover after 2 weeks following symptom onset. Data collected by the COVID Symptom Study indicate that 10% of people (often classified as ‘mild’ COVID-19 cases) experience prolonged symptoms after 3 weeks or more. Anecdotal reports suggest that long COVID symptoms can last more than 4 months".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that is in the 1% category should do everything they can to protect there self and the other 99% of which it has little effect on should get on with there lives imo.

 

this is getting ridiculous.

 

way to much scaremongering going on from the gov and media when the stats show it effect hardly 1% of the population

Edited by whoareyaaa
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...