Jump to content

General News Discussion


Barry Fish
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm amused that Trickett and Lavery want Labour to apologise for its brexit policy.

Who was in charge of Labour's position on Brexit? Corbyn. It's  ... erm ... strange that they're not demanding the apology from him. :P 

I take their point that Labour were on the wrong side of the electorate by appearing to reject a public vote, but that all rides on the idea that brexit could be a reasonable thing to do ... when as we're seeing, it was a crock of lies about the exceedingly difficult and detrimental.

Told you it would be a nightmare. It's massively frustrating at times not being free to give my reasons, when it's to do with knowledge and not my own intellect.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I see Cummings is going.

The c**t should have gone months ago.

Waited to see his vandalism through. He's done his worst, why stay.

He sounds lovely

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/13/special-adviser-sacked-by-dominic-cummings-to-receive-payoff

 

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, feral chile said:

What do you think of the following examples of dealing with housing?

They're not only dealing with housing, they're also dealing with different people with different attitudes towards housing, and where the economics of housing plays a different role within the country's economy.

Housing in the UK can be much better managed than it is, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's solutions in other countries we can import wholesale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2020 at 10:01 AM, eFestivals said:

He says covid-19 doesn't exist... What he doesn't mention in anything I've heard so far is the huge extra number of people in hospitals. 

 

He says Covid-19 doesn't exist, the actual name is SARS-CoV-2 (the successor to SARS-CoV in the early 2000s) but more than that, covid viruses have been with humans (and other mammals) since the dawn of time (along with influenza). And throughout that time they have jumped back and forth throughout humans and other animals. I think he objects to it being called a novel virus rather than a novel strain (the Spanish Flu pandemic was horrible, and unlike most other influenzas it largely killed the young and the fit rather than only picking off the elderly, but as different was it was to traditional flu it was still a flu). I think that's his point?

The people in hospital is less important than the amount of people who die. Outside of the very old or the very ill this isn't a lethal disease. Take a look at the nature article on this (and its the same for the UK, USA, etc.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73777-8

41598_2020_73777_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

 

See that mortality distribution? It's nothing-adjacent until you get to the very old and then it's substantial. The average age of a death from this illness is 82 years old. The UK's average life expectancy is 81.

His opinion as far as I can tell is that it's not rational to destroy the economies for generations to protect people who are, on average, at the end of their natural lifespans. And more than that with the genuinely large-scale medical killers in the country (heart disease, cancer) are going under diagnosed and under treated and will overwhelm SARS-CoV-2 numbers many times over, and many more of those deaths will be in much younger populations than SARS-CoV-2.

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, feral chile said:

What do you think of the following examples of dealing with housing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme

The intention of the program was good but the result was a disaster, you look into those districts and district after district after district after is high-crime / no-go scheme (or to use Swedish social worker terms, "vulnerable" and "on the front line").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, viberunner said:

The people in hospital is less important than the amount of people who die. Outside of the very old or the very ill this isn't a lethal disease. 

His opinion as far as I can tell is that it's not rational to destroy the economies for generations to protect people who are, on average, at the end of their natural lifespans. And more than that with the genuinely large-scale medical killers in the country (heart disease, cancer) are going under diagnosed and under treated and will overwhelm SARS-CoV-2 numbers many times over, and many more of those deaths will be in much younger populations than SARS-CoV-2.

And he's absolutely right the problem is the public have only been provided with one side so far and won't see the effects of the lockdown for many years. Its been sage policy to only feed information that it feels will ensure compliance with the restrictions and we are now in a position where 48% of people want lockdowns to continue after the old and vulnerable have been vaccinated and until everyone has. That sort of suggests any V shaped recovery is dead.

The baby boomers are now hitting their mid 70's, we've got top heavy populations who were going to overload healthcare systems anyway (and will many times over the next decade due to there being no money left to expand NHS capacity) The £400bn spent on the lockdown (to put that figure in context the entire income tax take last year was £194bn) means this is a one time thing for a generation so now can't be used as you say if a Spanish flu type virus emerges or god forbid something like a antibiotic resistant strain of TB comes about. 

This is why I said Starmer was making a mistake demanding a lockdown. When you look at the 2008 financial crisis, Greece and Italy didn't go under till 2012. That's how debt works, you borrow based on growth figures and then when they don't come you build debt on debt until it becomes unsustainable, that's what the 2024 general election will be fought over. Not a virus that hasn't provided a death rate outside of normal levels, even in Sweden who haven't locked down they look to be on course for less deaths than 2018.

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, viberunner said:

His opinion as far as I can tell is that it's not rational to destroy the economies for generations to protect people who are, on average, at the end of their natural lifespans.

It's a take on things (one that many people have made), but at take which ignores the extra demand covid makes on healthcare services - and that's an extra demand which comes from more than just the very old.

In the short-term there's simply no alternative to damaging economies with lockdowns, unless we're prepared to go without the healthcare we all expect for ourselves when at our most ill.

 

Quote

And more than that with the genuinely large-scale medical killers in the country (heart disease, cancer) are going under diagnosed and under treated and will overwhelm SARS-CoV-2 numbers many times over, and many more of those deaths will be in much younger populations than SARS-CoV-2.

I don't believe the stats suggest that at all with what's happened so far - although of course things move more in that direction the longer things go on.

The problem in all directions is the demand on available healthcare, and that's not so easy to ramp up even in the medium term, as it requires trained staff as well as facilities. Luckily a vaccine should reduce the demand. 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lost said:

This is why I said Starmer was making a mistake demanding a lockdown. 

it's easy to say that in isolation, because it pretends there's no consequences from not locking down.

Without a lockdown severely-ill people would be refused the urgent healthcare they need.

I've yet to hear anyone who's against lockdown own the consequences of their choice, and there's a reason why. The anti-lockdown's are not being honest. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I've yet to hear anyone who's against lockdown own the consequences of their choice, and there's a reason why. The anti-lockdown's are not being honest. ;) 

Well no-ones been refused care in Sweden but if we say they have a better healthcare system than us and this is definitely going to happen in this country then yes some people may need to die at home.

On the other side are you expecting the pro lockdown peeps to "own" the deaths due to the lockdown? If we say those people who are ill now would of died anyway with an overloaded NHS We are still discounting the number of people who will die over the next decade due to the shitty economy. Not just the suicides but the alcohol and drugs including the extra 4 million people who came out of lockdown drinking 50 units of alcohol a week. 

If we then look outside of this country. We have had 1.3 million deaths WITH COVID this year worldwide. That is versus 2.4 million death FROM aids, tb and malaria. Now these are deaths where drugs are already available. If we ignore the fact that the money spent on lockdowns could of been spent on drugs which save millions more lives as that probably wouldn't of happened and jump to the position we've recalled medical teams to their domestic countries to help with covid. These deaths are going to rapidly increase due to the vaccination and treatment centres being closed. We only have to knock these projects back a decade to be looking at 5 - 6 million deaths a year.

I understand that in a western democracy the government is going to be forced to go out and protect the biggest voting block so the minute China locked down even though we've never had lockdowns as part of our pandemic planning because of social media and the way news travels every other country was going to fall like dominos. But lets not pretend we are not killing more people to protect a very specific group who have had in the main long lives at a time when things are going to be as good as they are ever going to get.

 

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lost said:

then yes some people may need to die at home.

You're being deliberately obtuse, or delberately dishonest. People are already dying at home of covid, in this wave as they did in the first wave.

But alongside that, there's not been heart attack victims being told fuck off and die somewhere else, car crash victims left to die at the side the side of the road, etc. Normal medical emergency work has continued as normal.

Under your 'plan' - which is the very opposite of a plan! - none of that could continue.

How much do you fancy being the one at the hospital door, telling people they need to die unnecessarily?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lost said:

On the other side are you expecting the pro lockdown peeps to "own" the deaths due to the lockdown?

No one involved is hiding from the adverse effects of the way things are being managed at the moment. The adverse effects are acknowledged.

Which is different to your version, where you first pretend there's no consequences, and when pulled up on them pretend the consequences are something they're not.

Did I mention somewhere about lack of honesty, that you've just proven? ;) 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lost said:

But lets not pretend we are not killing more people to protect a very specific group who have had in the main long lives at a time when things are going to be as good as they are ever going to get.

:lol: 

"let's not pretend" = you pretending.

Did I mention somewhere about lack of honesty? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

:lol: 

"let's not pretend" = you pretending.

Did I mention somewhere about lack of honesty? 

How am I pretending? GlaxoSmithKline's results were released a few days ago and I suggest you look at the vaccine division. Literally they have completely collapsed, the whole world is concentrating on covid and things like tb and measles are not being vaccinated against in the 3rd world. That 5 - 6 million deaths a year that was happening a few years ago could easily be surpassed simply because you can see more vaccinations were happening during that period.

Unless your going to explain how a proportion of kids who haven't been vaccinated against deadly diseases are not going to die when they catch them I don't really see how my point is incorrect?

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lost said:

even in Sweden who haven't locked down they look to be on course for less deaths than 2018.

"Sweden introduces tighter restrictions to halt surging coronavirus cases"

https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/13/sweden-introduces-tighter-restrictions-to-halt-surging-coronavirus-cases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LJS said:

"Sweden introduces tighter restrictions to halt surging coronavirus cases"

https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/13/sweden-introduces-tighter-restrictions-to-halt-surging-coronavirus-cases

That link says they have opted not to impose a lockdown :huh:

I'd be surprised if they now U turn when the WHO has U turned and told countries to stop using lockdowns.

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lost said:

That link says they have opted not to impose a lockdown :huh:

I didn't say it did & technically you are wrong anyway because it doesn't actually say what you say it does.

My point was that the much vaunted Swedish model (which only looks good when you compare it with countries like the UK whose response to the pandemic has been woeful) isn't working.

5 hours ago, lost said:

I'd be surprised if they now U turn when the WHO has U turned and told countries to stop using lockdowns.

The WHO has done no such thing.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2020/10/13/who-advice-on-lockdowns-in-the-news/

It has certainly cautioned against using lockdowns as the main tactic to control but has not "told countries to stop using lockdowns."

 

4 hours ago, JoshD said:

I assume the assertion that not locking down leads to people dying in the street can be backed up with concrete examples of that happening in countries that didn’t lock down but instead adopted controlled measures?

 

two points:

1: I have never argued that lockdown was necessarily the best way to deal with this from the outset. Had we thrown massive resources into test & trace right at the start combined with quarantining people entering the country - particularly from countries with high infection rates - we might have been able to avoid lockdown in march - or at least been able to make it shorter and/or less severe.

We didn't do either of these things though, so there was no choice but to lockdown when we did. The notion that the economy would have been fine if we hadn't locked down is just nonsense.   

2: Had we used the time that the lockdown1 bought us to really develop an effective test & trace system and combined this with workable border controls, we might have been able to avoid the "lockdown light" we have now. 

Again, we didn't do these things - or at least not very effectively. So, we find ourselves in a similar position to March where the only effective way we can bring the spread of the virus under control is to (at least partly) shut down society again.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are sick and/or die, that impacts the economy as well. Lots of businesses/companies/workers would have had problems, and given our inadequate social support packages (eg. SSP being horrifically low), there would have either need to have been investment, or the consequences of the virus would have caused economic deprivation anyway.

In March, there was a really  big downturn in footfall to retail and hospitality, and that's before there was any hint of government measures. People were scared, it impacted their decisions and slowed the economy. There's no doubt that better management from our useless government could have led to better scenarios, a less restricted life, and a more thriving economy, but "lockdown bad, hurts economy" is an overly simplistic argument.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, lost said:

things like tb and measles are not being vaccinated against in the 3rd world.

and that's because of a UK lockdown...? Bullshit!

It's not lockdown which causes treatments for other things to be unavailable, it's failing to lockdown will be what causes treatments for other things to not be available, because the medics are swamped dealing with covid.

13 hours ago, lost said:

That link says they have opted not to impose a lockdown :huh:

does that link also say whether they're having to restrict treatments to other things because of the demands of covid? Or do they have a magic health service which can cope with the huge extra demands of covid without effecting other treatments?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JoshD said:

I assume the assertion that not locking down leads to people dying in the street can be backed up with concrete examples of that happening in countries that didn’t lock down but instead adopted controlled measures?

lockdown is something that has happened after the *failure* of other measures, and not instead of other measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LJS said:

quarantining people entering the country

if we had, we'd be starving to death - which i'm sure everyone would agree is a fate worse than lockdown. ;) 

Circumstances in the UK are such that a NZ type of isolationism was never a  workable possibility. 

But if it had been (with Scotland doing it's 'we're sovereign' thing and closing its borders from England), then the economic effect would be at least as bad as lockdown.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, eFestivals said:

lockdown is something that has happened after the *failure* of other measures, and not instead of other measures.

So places that didn’t lock down - and yet didn’t have corpses piling up in an apocalyptic manner - implemented successful measures? Are you sure you want to say that? 🙂  

If I truly believed that apocalyptic scenes across all demographics would unfold, I’d be demanding schools closed, nonessential work stopped and no exercise. But I don’t - and I don’t think others do either, otherwise they would be. We’ve just chosen a few massively expensive minor measures.

Lockdowns are a political choice to preserve the lives of the old at the expense of the livelihoods of the young. As for healthcare being overloaded - we choose who to treat. We could choose to prioritise the young or non Covid. Yes, people will die who didn’t need to die. But the QALYs lost from those surplus deaths would be lower than the QALYs lost from lockdown.

If you attempt to estimate cost per life saved, do you reach a figure that you’re satisfied with? Honestly? Or would you accept any figure no matter how high not to have to make tough decisions about who to treat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, LJS said:

  quarantining people entering the country  

 

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

if we had, we'd be starving to death - which i'm sure everyone would agree is a fate worse than lockdown. ;) 

I love how you picked out 5 words from a post with loads & loads of words in it - but forgive me if I wasn't clear enough - clearly as we rely on lorries bringing essential supplies into the country, it would not be practical to quarantine all the lorry drivers, which might explain why i didn't say "quarantining ALL people entering the country." We certainly could have done something about all the millions of tourists arriving in or returning to this country during the early part of the pandemic and i don't really imagine you disagree with me on that.

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Circumstances in the UK are such that a NZ type of isolationism was never a  workable possibility. 

You are probably right, but it worth reflecting on what New Zealand has been able to achieve with its approach.

image.png.a4b723de2fae93839058e273f811b000.png

 

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But if it had been (with Scotland doing it's 'we're sovereign' thing and closing its borders from England), then the economic effect would be at least as bad as lockdown.

Of course, now its clear why you chose the five words you did: so you could have a gratuitous pop at the SNP.

We have, of course, discussed your views elsewhere.

You were talking mince there.

You are talking mince here.

 

Link to comment
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.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...