When will covid end ? Please be nice and respectful to others

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

 

No. Cases are starting to go down. We should just crack on 

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

No. Cases are starting to go down. We should just crack on 

No we should stop cracking on and have personal responsibility.

[steviewevie]

Watching The Lighthouse, makes me miss lockdown.

[zahidf]

Fake SAGE have new friends

 

[JoeyT]

9 hours ago, steviewevie said:

No we should stop cracking on and have personal responsibility.

👀 it was all doom last week but seems the tide has changed pretty quickly… I did say growth rate had slowed and we could see a drop in cases fairly soon. Someone hand me a SAGE membership.

 

[JoeyT]

Where do indie sage go now? Back to long covid?

 

[JoeyT]

Pick your corner…

 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, JoeyT said:

Pick your corner…

 

cases slump because of jabs?

[steviewevie]

personal responsibility

[Fuzzy Afro]

20 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Again the lockdown merchants would of had us implementing devastating restrictions unnecessarly.

Honestly mate. I lament the day the first lockdown was implemented, because it normalised an emergency response to a non-emergency situation.

 

Let’s be honest, the only time lockdowns are acceptable are in response to extreme situations, such as an active shooter, a nuclear attack, a bioweapon etc

 

Certainly not proportionate to the threat of a bog standard virus which is near harmless to under 70s 

[JoeyT]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

cases slump because of jabs?

and natural immunity within the younger cohort one imagines.

So:
- cases dropping within school age groups due to natural immunity
- boosters significantly ramp up protection in those 50+ or vulnerable

In turn this will reduce cases / reduce pressure on NHS / reduce amount of deaths and given we are now possibly at the turning point of cases surely anyone with a straight face can't say we need to implement any restrictions or a plan B?

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

and natural immunity within the younger cohort one imagines.

So:
- cases dropping within school age groups due to natural immunity
- boosters significantly ramp up protection in those 50+ or vulnerable

In turn this will reduce cases / reduce pressure on NHS / reduce amount of deaths and given we are now possibly at the turning point of cases surely anyone with a straight face can't say we need to implement any restrictions or a plan B?

they're jabbing kids too.

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

In turn this will reduce cases / reduce pressure on NHS / reduce amount of deaths and given we are now possibly at the turning point of cases surely anyone with a straight face can't say we need to implement any restrictions or a plan B?

still depends on how hospitals are coping now, and how much faith they put in these models.

[DeanoL]

On 10/23/2021 at 11:14 AM, efcfanwirral said:

Sounds like that would be the most sensible option, I just meant I imagine Pfizer will push for whole population boosters to boost their $$$. Maybe its needed but I'm not sure I'd take their word on that one, hopefully government and independent studies are ongoing! Massive respect to them for what they've done so far, but I don't trust them not to push profiteering too far 

If every booster makes it 90% more effective they can keep them coming, it's well earned $$$!

36 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Honestly mate. I lament the day the first lockdown was implemented, because it normalised an emergency response to a non-emergency situation.

 

Let’s be honest, the only time lockdowns are acceptable are in response to extreme situations, such as an active shooter, a nuclear attack, a bioweapon etc

 

Certainly not proportionate to the threat of a bog standard virus which is near harmless to under 70s 

Do you genuinely think we should never have gone into lockdown in the first place?

[zahidf]

Sage models has deaths/hospitalisations all the way down. I dont see how ANY restrictions are warranted going forward

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If every booster makes it 90% more effective they can keep them coming, it's well earned $$$!

Do you genuinely think we should never have gone into lockdown in the first place?

With hindsight it was an utterly rotten idea.

 

 

It may have saved a couple of hundred thousand lives in the short term but it has completely normalised stay at home orders as a response to a non-emergency situation. That to me is much more dangerous than a short term threat. 

[lost]

14 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

With hindsight it was an utterly rotten idea.

 

 

It may have saved a couple of hundred thousand lives in the short term but it has completely normalised stay at home orders as a response to a non-emergency situation. That to me is much more dangerous than a short term threat. 

I've been saying this all the way through the pandemic and it seems to be gathering support. Cases peaked before each of the three lockdowns, there is nothing in the data between countries and types of lockdown that suggest they actually reduce deaths. Sweden I think is now out of the top 50 countries on death rate, it was only high at the start as they did what we did emptying hospitals into nursing homes and hasn't had any extra deaths in younger people who have been allowed to live their lives relatively normally for the last couple of years.

I don't see what is wrong with giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up like we do with smoking, drinking more than 14 units a week and being over weight?

Saying all that though i'm expecting the opposite. Its always been telling that Prof Ferguson said they didn't do it before because they didn't think they'd get away with it in a liberal democracy so I'm in the we are living in a new normal camp. Its like say taking liquids in your hand luggage on planes, that ban was only supposed to be temporary based on a random paper that suggested it was theoretically possible to take a plane down.

Edited October 25, 2021 by lost

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

With hindsight it was an utterly rotten idea.

 

 

It may have saved a couple of hundred thousand lives in the short term but it has completely normalised stay at home orders as a response to a non-emergency situation. That to me is much more dangerous than a short term threat. 

Nah, it's just the pandemic isn't completely over yet and there's still some uncertainty about how good and lasting immunity is with these vaccines or with natural infection...hopefully this is last winter that we'll even talk about restrictions, but more money needs spending on parts of health service so more headroom in case of future spikes in whatever.

The lockdown was needed otherwise health services would have reached breaking point and we would have ran out of facilities and staff and had a lot more deaths from covid and other stuff, but at same time lockdown came at a great cost to people's lives and should only be used as a last resort when all other possible options have failed.

[DeanoL]

58 minutes ago, lost said:

I don't see what is wrong with giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up like we do with smoking, drinking more than 14 units a week and being over weight?

Because it's something you get from the behaviour of other people rather than your own behaviour? And you can be exposed to it as part of your work.

You mention smoking but that's the exact model being used: we banned smoking in public places and workplaces because other people could expose those who didn't want to be exposed to risk. If you disagree with the smoking ban as well that's fair enough, I get your point even though I don't agree with it, but the smoking comparison demonstrates exactly why the current thinking was not to leave it up to the individual. 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

It may have saved a couple of hundred thousand lives in the short term but it has completely normalised stay at home orders as a response to a non-emergency situation. That to me is much more dangerous than a short term threat. 

Out of interest, if a genie appeared and said we can put this back in the bottle, the whole world will forget it happened, and lockdown is no longer normalised, but some of your friends and family had to die to make that happen, how many would you be willing to go to? 

[efcfanwirral]

15 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Did they ever set any threshold or criteria of when should move to plan b or visa versa? The whole thing is just abstract and it's getting everyone wound up.

This is my biggest problem with it all - if they set out clear numbers to get into plan B and, just as importantly, get out of it then at least everyone would know where they stand.

My concern is that its at the government's whim to decide on when it comes in (it's not if, never has been), but is as open ended as their January lockdown was. 

On the flipside, maybe there is no criteria because once you set out criteria for plan B you kind of have to nod towards a plan C if it doesn't work, and as it doesn't go far enough if the aim is to combat seasonality and actually bring cases down, they probably don't want to acknowledge that...

Edited October 25, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[lost]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

but the smoking comparison demonstrates exactly why the current thinking was not to leave it up to the individual. 

Hmm like all things it needs to be weighed up. Like say we could ban cars because other people kill you in car crashes. For someone of my age and BMI I was as likely to die in a car crash driving to the supermarket during lockdown as I was from Covid so that seems a fair comparison and that's why I carried on normally with that level of risk.

Banning smoking in doors I was quite indifferent about but seemed a small thing for a big pay off. With lockdowns we produced a million extra alcoholics, people were not getting exercise, we damaged the economy, took on nearly half trillion in debt. All pretty major things which of course will kill people in different ways.

As i said we know the younger people in Sweden who were not locked down and went to night clubs and stuff suffered no higher death rates whilst the old and vulnerable were asked to self isolate over there did to a better level than they did in the UK as they had lower death rates than we did.

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour ago, lost said:

I've been saying this all the way through the pandemic and it seems to be gathering support. Cases peaked before each of the three lockdowns, there is nothing in the data between countries and types of lockdown that suggest they actually reduce deaths. Sweden I think is now out of the top 50 countries on death rate, it was only high at the start as they did what we did emptying hospitals into nursing homes and hasn't had any extra deaths in younger people who have been allowed to live their lives relatively normally for the last couple of years.

I don't see what is wrong with giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up like we do with smoking, drinking more than 14 units a week and being over weight?

Saying all that though i'm expecting the opposite. Its always been telling that Prof Ferguson said they didn't do it before because they didn't think they'd get away with it in a liberal democracy so I'm in the we are living in a new normal camp. Its like say taking liquids in your hand luggage on planes, that ban was only supposed to be temporary based on a random paper that suggested it was theoretically possible to take a plane down.

 

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Because it's something you get from the behaviour of other people rather than your own behaviour? And you can be exposed to it as part of your work.

You mention smoking but that's the exact model being used: we banned smoking in public places and workplaces because other people could expose those who didn't want to be exposed to risk. If you disagree with the smoking ban as well that's fair enough, I get your point even though I don't agree with it, but the smoking comparison demonstrates exactly why the current thinking was not to leave it up to the individual. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-pilot-to-help-people-eat-better-and-exercise-more

Not a big leap in our phone based world for that to get built into the vaccine passport style system...save the NHS... 

Once you normalise criteria based entry into parts of society it opens doors like this 

Edited October 25, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[Fuzzy Afro]

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Out of interest, if a genie appeared and said we can put this back in the bottle, the whole world will forget it happened, and lockdown is no longer normalised, but some of your friends and family had to die to make that happen, how many would you be willing to go to? 

None. 
 

It’s very easy to tell who will die if they catch covid. Let’s make a crude assumption that everyone who was hospitalised would die if left untreated due to overwhelming (and I don’t believe that to be true, but humour me), we can very easily predict who will end up in hospital. The vast majority are of pension age, of those who are not, the vast majority are obese and of the working age/non-obese population, you’re mainly looking at those with SEVERE underlying health conditions.

 

 

Therefore, anyone falling into one of those buckets should have been aggressively shielding throughout the pandemic until the vaccine became available. 
 

Whether or not the rest of us are locked down or not has no bearing on the ability of the vulnerable to shield. 

[lost]

7 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-pilot-to-help-people-eat-better-and-exercise-more

Not a big leap in our phone based world for that to get built into the vaccine passport style system...save the NHS... 

Once you normalise criteria based entry into parts of society it opens doors like this 

Very easy to do with Crypto Currencies /programmable money which will probably be mainstream in 5 - 10 years time. The government can simply program your benefits so they can't be spent on beer and fags, only healthy food.