Coronavirus Thread

[StanSP]

 

 

[AllGoneTitsSchlupp]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

this new zealand stuff confuses me, yes its great they have no cases, but they eventually have to open up again don't they ? what then ? repeated lockdowns forever ?

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

this new zealand stuff confuses me, yes its great they have no cases, but they eventually have to open up again don't they ? what then ? repeated lockdowns forever ?

Fvck sake. They're covid-free and first thing mentioned is more lockdowns . 

 

 

[foxile5]

25 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

this new zealand stuff confuses me, yes its great they have no cases, but they eventually have to open up again don't they ? what then ? repeated lockdowns forever ?

Well that remains to be seen. 

 

I think the takeaway message there is that you can manage this virus effectively in some circumstances. 

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

53 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

this new zealand stuff confuses me, yes its great they have no cases, but they eventually have to open up again don't they ? what then ? repeated lockdowns forever ?

Assuming the vaccine works, they vaccinate everyone and it's all good.  If the vaccine doesn't work, they keep the drawbridge pulled up and live in splendid isolation forevermore.  (Not a bad place to be isolated in.)

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

this new zealand stuff confuses me, yes its great they have no cases, but they eventually have to open up again don't they ? what then ? repeated lockdowns forever ?

Why?

 

It's reasonably certain that the virus isn't carried upon cargo so they'll have few problems with imports, and why would they need people? Their tourist industry has been able to have been propped up for this long, I'm assuming that they think it would last long enough that the various vaccines can take effect and caseloads drop worldwide.

 

And if they must bring in people for some reason, I'm sure there's quarantine restrictions that can be applied that minimise the risk to the general population.

 

Unless they make a serious misstep, NZ have this kicked, and well done to them.

 

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

Assuming the vaccine works, they vaccinate everyone and it's all good.  If the vaccine doesn't work, they keep the drawbridge pulled up and live in splendid isolation forevermore.  (Not a bad place to be isolated in.)

...is there a scientifically compelling reason to suggest this might be the case or is it purely speculative?

[WigstonWanderer]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Why?

 

It's reasonably certain that the virus isn't carried upon cargo so they'll have few problems with imports, and why would they need people? Their tourist industry has been able to have been propped up for this long, I'm assuming that they think it would last long enough that the various vaccines can take effect and caseloads drop worldwide.

 

And if they must bring in people for some reason, I'm sure there's quarantine restrictions that can be applied that minimise the risk to the general population.

 

Unless they make a serious misstep, NZ have this kicked, and well done to them.

 

...is there a scientifically compelling reason to suggest this might be the case or is it purely speculative?

There’s also now talk of a 2 way bubble between NZ and Australia early in the new year. Neither population will be able to visit other countries for a while so will have to holiday in the bubble, giving the the travel industry at least some offset. Wouldn’t mind a holiday in NZ myself as I’ve never been there before.

 

Imports and exports have continued uninterrupted throughout the pandemic without many serious incidents. Obviously can’t continue forever like this, but compared with elsewhere we’re in something of a paradise within a walled garden. Hopefully vaccines will eventually provide way out.

[dsr-burnley]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...is there a scientifically compelling reason to suggest this might be the case or is it purely speculative?

The scientifically compelling reason to suggest that the vaccine might not work is because there is no scientific proof that the vaccine will work.  Until they prove that the vaccine stops coronavirus from being a problem, it's valid to suggest it might not.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The scientifically compelling reason to suggest that the vaccine might not work is because there is no scientific proof that the vaccine will work.  Until they prove that the vaccine stops coronavirus from being a problem, it's valid to suggest it might not.

Hmmm...that is what I thought all those rather rigorous trials that took place this year were for - to establish proof of efficacy in terms of reducing symptoms so it doesn't actually kill anyone across as wide a spectrum of the population as possible, before rolling the thing out everywhere.

 

Evidently I was mistaken, though I could dig up a couple of papers on the matter if folks would like me to.

[Dunge]

Sorry, but what more evidence do you need? The exact thing you’re asking for (scientific proof) has been provided, peer-reviewed by world-leading experts as being not just moderately effective but highly effective. But you’re saying that’s not only not enough, but that there’s “no evidence”. Does God himself need to speak to you from a burning bush to confirm it?

 

Sorry I sound exasperated, but that comment is exasperating.

[dsr-burnley]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hmmm...that is what I thought all those rather rigorous trials that took place this year were for - to establish proof of efficacy in terms of reducing symptoms so it doesn't actually kill anyone across as wide a spectrum of the population as possible, before rolling the thing out everywhere.

 

Evidently I was mistaken, though I could dig up a couple of papers on the matter if folks would like me to.

Perhaps we're at cross purposes.  I don't think the scientists have proved that this vaccine will beyond all doubt end the threat of coronavirus.  There is still the possibility that things will not go as planned.  If you thought that coronavirus was defeated for a certainty with no possibility of problems, then yes, you were mistaken.  Sorry.

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, Dunge said:

Sorry, but what more evidence do you need? The exact thing you’re asking for (scientific proof) has been provided, peer-reviewed by world-leading experts as being not just moderately effective but highly effective. But you’re saying that’s not only not enough, but that there’s “no evidence”. Does God himself need to speak to you from a burning bush to confirm it?

 

Sorry I sound exasperated, but that comment is exasperating.

Who is that comment directed at?  I can't see any signs in the immediate past of anyone saying there is no evidence that the vaccine will work.

 

If it was directed at me, I said there is no proof that the vaccine will work; specifically, no proof that vaccinating the entire population will make coronavirus cease to be a significant problem.  That's not the same as no evidence.  If you are happy to believe that science has proved beyond doubt that coronavirus is defeated in all but the final detail of sticking in the needles, and nothing can possibly go wrong, then fine.  But I doubt you will find a scientific paper that expresses that certainty.  Unfortunately.

 

If you are replying to someone else, then I apologise for being presumptuous.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Perhaps we're at cross purposes.  I don't think the scientists have proved that this vaccine will beyond all doubt end the threat of coronavirus.  There is still the possibility that things will not go as planned.  If you thought that coronavirus was defeated for a certainty with no possibility of problems, then yes, you were mistaken.  Sorry.

I think the issue here is that an unrealistic burden of proof is being asked for (Nirvana fallacy) as well as the burden of proof having to come from the wrong source. There's a possibility that things could still go Pete Tong, but right now quite frankly the scientific consensus is that the vaccine will address the issue with a high enough probability to approve its widespread use based on complex and methodical study, and as such the burden of proof is on those who don't think it will work to prove otherwise.

 

If, however, all you're doing is expressing doubt that it could work because of something unforeseen, then fair enough - but that is purely speculative.

[dsr-burnley]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think the issue here is that an unrealistic burden of proof is being asked for (Nirvana fallacy) as well as the burden of proof having to come from the wrong source. There's a possibility that things could still go Pete Tong, but right now quite frankly the scientific consensus is that the vaccine will address the issue with a high enough probability to approve its widespread use based on complex and methodical study, and as such the burden of proof is on those who don't think it will work to prove otherwise.

 

If, however, all you're doing is expressing doubt that it could work because of something unforeseen, then fair enough - but that is purely speculative.

Of course it's speculative.  If it works, we're in the clear in a few months; if it doesn't, we're not.  I think it will work.  I'm an optimist, and I'm sick of lockdown, so I want it to work.  But there's no certainty.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Of course it's speculative.  If it works, we're in the clear in a few months; if it doesn't, we're not.  I think it will work.  I'm an optimist, and I'm sick of lockdown, so I want it to work.  But there's no certainty.

Thank you for qualifying your remarks.

[Dunge]

dsr- My comment was aimed at you. I apologise for being snarky; I wasn’t in the best of moods last night and that comment really got my goat.

 

Although if you’re waiting for absolute proof, you’ll never be satisfied. And I fear too many people might use this as an excuse for why they ran away from the needle.

[whoareyaaa]

are we coming out of Tier 3?

[The People's Hero]

Not good down here (south-east). Have a couple of friends who work in the 2 local hospitals and both got in touch over two days; and its taken a huge turn for their worse down here (Kent).

 

Hope all FT'ers and their families are well and staying safe.

[Kasey Keller]

I’ve had the thing, 2 weeks on my sleeping patterns are shot to sh!t

you feel so exhausted and drained.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, The People's Hero said:

Not good down here (south-east). Have a couple of friends who work in the 2 local hospitals and both got in touch over two days; and its taken a huge turn for their worse down here (Kent).

 

Hope all FT'ers and their families are well and staying safe.

Likewise mate.  Kent seems to be taking a big hit at the moment indeed.  West Sussex also up a bit.  Looking forward to a quiet Christmas!

[Jon the Hat]

54 minutes ago, Kasey Keller said:

I’ve had the thing, 2 weeks on my sleeping patterns are shot to sh!t

you feel so exhausted and drained.

I hope you feel better soon!

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

dsr- My comment was aimed at you. I apologise for being snarky; I wasn’t in the best of moods last night and that comment really got my goat.

 

Although if you’re waiting for absolute proof, you’ll never be satisfied. And I fear too many people might use this as an excuse for why they ran away from the needle.

No worries.  Absolute proof will be when we've been vaccinated and coronavirus becomes rare.  

 

As for the vaccine, I might have been dubious 6 months ago.  Now, I'd take it if it was offered by a bloke called Private Joe Walker working for Flash Harry Enterprises.

[Carl the Llama]

It bothers me greatly that being sceptical of every single piece of expert advice is now considered open mindedness by large swathes of people.  I call it wilful ignorance.   We won't get any further as a civilisation until we undo the notion that having access to the internet and Linda from down the road's Facebook feed makes you just as much an authority on a subject as a person who's dedicated years to studying it.  Have some humility and accept that some people are more clued up than you.

[simFox]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It bothers me greatly that being sceptical of every single piece of expert advice is now considered open mindedness by large swathes of people.  I call it wilful ignorance.   We won't get any further as a civilisation until we undo the notion that having access to the internet and Linda from down the road's Facebook feed makes you just as much an authority on a subject as a person who's dedicated years to studying it.  Have some humility and accept that some people are more clued up than you.

It's easy to belittle any source of information on the internet by announcing that its all written by Linda on Facebook.

 

Not Nobel prize winning scientists or a bunch of other experts. Nope, just "Linda on Facebook".

 

The sheer hypocrisy of revealing this by writing it on the internet is completely lost.

[Jon the Hat]

46 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It bothers me greatly that being sceptical of every single piece of expert advice is now considered open mindedness by large swathes of people.  I call it wilful ignorance.   We won't get any further as a civilisation until we undo the notion that having access to the internet and Linda from down the road's Facebook feed makes you just as much an authority on a subject as a person who's dedicated years to studying it.  Have some humility and accept that some people are more clued up than you.

Sadly you cannot switch on the BBC news and get any balance anymore.  They have gone full COVID crazy.  Little or no real challenge to the Government which has made some shocking decision unless it is to demand more restrictions.  Barely a question on whether lockdown works, barely a word from those who think the cost of lockdown is worse than the risk it is trying to offset.  "Save the NHS" has become more important that saving lives.  It has gone too far. The other problem is that the experts are limited.  If you asks an epidemiologist how to stop Covid killing lots of people the will tell you, but they won't consider or know the knock on effects.