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

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

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. 

28% of adults in England are obese. You can't "aggressively shield" that many people - many of them would be key workers, and we'd have to get food to all of them, and many share households with people that aren't at risk by your definition, but part of aggressive shielding means those people need to shield too, or the at-risk person needs to be moved somewhere they can shield.

I get your point, but you're massively underestimating the number of people at risk from COVID, even based on your own list of risk factors.

edit - also, don't you just get the same issue you have a problem with, just even worse, but just for "at risk" people? I have friends who have "severe underlying health conditions" but they're far from death's door, just, y'know, disabled. You'd normalise this "selective lockdown" idea for those at risk, and if it worked it'd be even worse as it'd have more support as a majority wouldn't be impacted by it.

Edited October 25, 2021 by DeanoL

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

28% of adults in England are obese. You can't "aggressively shield" that many people - many of them would be key workers, and we'd have to get food to all of them, and many share households with people that aren't at risk by your definition, but part of aggressive shielding means those people need to shield too, or the at-risk person needs to be moved somewhere they can shield.

I get your point, but you're massively underestimating the number of people at risk from COVID, even based on your own list of risk factors.

I probably count as obese. It would be wide of the mark to suggest all obese people are at high risk.

 

I believe it’s considered BMI > 40 is the point where you are clinically extremely vulnerable/

 

Either way, I think the pro/anti lockdown dividing line falls depending on whether you consider covid to be an emergency of the calibre of an active shooter or nuclear attack. In my view, only events of that magnitude warrant a stay at home order.

[DeanoL]

15 minutes ago, lost said:

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.

But that's why we also have speed limits and driving tests, we don't just tell people "yeah, drive whenever and however you want, it's at your own risk". They're the equivalent of social distancing and mask wearing - we don't tell people they can't do it, just dictate how they do it to minimize risk.

I agree it all needs to be weighed up, it's just you're under the impression it wasn't. It totally was. They've been making those calculations all along. 

[lost]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But that's why we also have speed limits and driving tests, we don't just tell people "yeah, drive whenever and however you want, it's at your own risk". They're the equivalent of social distancing and mask wearing - we don't tell people they can't do it, just dictate how they do it to minimize risk.

I agree it all needs to be weighed up, it's just you're under the impression it wasn't. It totally was. They've been making those calculations all along. 

I'd agree social distancing probably works but we are talking about lockdowns. We had the strictest lockdown in the developed world after Christmas. Nearly every other country allowed for some sort of household mixing and yet apparently our death rate was due to being allowed to meet up 1 day (Christmad Day) As I said looking at the data I simply can't see how lockdowns work.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Either way, I think the pro/anti lockdown dividing line falls depending on whether you consider covid to be an emergency of the calibre of an active shooter or nuclear attack. In my view, only events of that magnitude warrant a stay at home order.

I think they're very different things. A stay at home order during a nuclear attack is completely pointless. A stay at home order during an active shooter attack would only be very short term and localised, and you'd be crazy not to. I don't think they can be compared in any way.

For a virus that's transmitted by close contact, that's when a stay-at-home order actually has an impact, because people going out and transmitting it makes it worse. Lockdown was never about keeping individuals safe (like with a shooter) it was about stopping things getting worse.

As for magnitudes, the worse mass shooting in the world killed 255 people. COVID has killed nearly 5 million. 

In the US a few hundred people a year die from mass shootings compared to the 100,000s that have died from COVID. 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

I'd agree social distancing probably works but we are talking about lockdowns. We had the strictest lockdown in the developed world after Christmas. Nearly every other country allowed for some sort of household mixing and yet apparently our death rate was due to being allowed to meet up 1 day (Christmad Day) As I said looking at the data I simply can't see how lockdowns work.

I do think lockdowns could have been smarter, but that would have needed a degree of intervention into privacy that we wouldn't have tolerated, or a degree of compliance that we just wouldn't have had. Every time we had any rule that was less that "don't leave your home" the country was full of people trying to exploit it: people in six different bubbles, pubs sticking chips on every table to pretend they were serving food, people claiming they were exempt from mask wearing just because they found them uncomfortable.

If we were actually willing to follow the rules a more graduated lockdown would have been doable, but we weren't so it had to be a simple thing with very few exceptions.

[lost]

38 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I do think lockdowns could have been smarter, but that would have needed a degree of intervention into privacy that we wouldn't have tolerated, or a degree of compliance that we just wouldn't have had. Every time we had any rule that was less that "don't leave your home" the country was full of people trying to exploit it: people in six different bubbles, pubs sticking chips on every table to pretend they were serving food, people claiming they were exempt from mask wearing just because they found them uncomfortable.

If we were actually willing to follow the rules a more graduated lockdown would have been doable, but we weren't so it had to be a simple thing with very few exceptions.

There were businesses given temporary bans in Sweden for not following the rules. Again I don't buy this argument that the British are this separate race who are uniquely stupid or selfish. Anyone that has done any travelling will know every country has these people in them. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by lost

[Fuzzy Afro]

Big day for case numbers today. We can genuinely establish whether booster jags are slaughtering the (5th?) wave into non-existence before it gets going, or if yesterday’s lower numbers were a mirage. 

[efcfanwirral]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Big day for case numbers today. We can genuinely establish whether booster jags are slaughtering the (5th?) wave into non-existence before it gets going, or if yesterday’s lower numbers were a mirage. 

Yeah the most important is the over 70s heading down, softening the knock on in hospitals in a couple of weeks 

Half term has come at a great time for the more general spread- the under 18s numbers were very high 

[fred quimby]

4 hours 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. 

Blimey lets slaughter a couple of hundred thousand people for some theorical future possibility

[Fuzzy Afro]

9 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Blimey lets slaughter a couple of hundred thousand people for some theorical future possibility

Eh? Old people getting sick and dying is not “slaughter”

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Eh? Old people getting sick and dying is not “slaughter”

it wasn't just old people dying, but I guess you could just leave anyone over a certain age to fend for themselves at home (or more likely a care home) no matter the illness. And while you're at it don't provide health care to anyone who is ill because of lifestyle choices...that should free up a few beds too.

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Given the current situation with the modeling again appearing to have been very wrong it does bring into question if the original lockdowns where either required or in the end saved anyone.

On the question on who would have been happy to see die in your own family.  Its obviously a ridiculous question as no one is going go serve up a loved one.  But if the question if I would of accepted a riskier existence for my own gran to avoid lockdowns then yes I would of done.  The idea lockdowns save lives has always been on weak ground.

good grief. This place is full of little Toby Youngs.

[fred quimby]

28 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Eh? Old people getting sick and dying is not “slaughter”

Kind of is if you know you can save people and decide to let them die. As you stated yourself lockdowns saved lifes, if you know that and then allow it to run it's course then.....well

Plus this attacks many other people are hard hit by this or are you saying they should die as well so you can go down the pub

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by fred quimby

[lost]

Adjusting for age and population last year in this country was the worst year for death we've had since 2008. Sweden who didn't lock down had their worst year since 2012. I think sometimes its difficult to put these things in perspective.

Even if we dumped social distancing Brazils excess death was just over 13% compared to our 7%ish so you'd of probably been looking at 60kish extra deaths last year if we have populations with similar health charactistics.

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

13 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Kind of is if you know you can save people and decide to let them die. As you stated yourself lockdowns saved lifes, if you know that and then allow it to run it's course then.....

 

 

 

The reason people die from covid is because3

 

- They went out and caught it in the first place

- They don’t have a good enough immune system to fight off a relatively minor virus.

 

 

This is natural selection, not slaughter. 

[fred quimby]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The reason people die from covid is because3

 

- They went out and caught it in the first place

- They don’t have a good enough immune system to fight off a relatively minor virus.

 

 

This is natural selection, not slaughter. 

wow. you are funny. I am not sure we work like that sorry. 

Stop cancer treatment and go for natural selction. Stop antibiotics and go for natural selction. where do you want to stop so you can get a pint

 

[fred quimby]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

We let people die all the time in this manner.  

what hundreds of thousands? (quoting FuzzY)

[steviewevie]

15 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The reason people die from covid is because3

 

- They went out and caught it in the first place

- They don’t have a good enough immune system to fight off a relatively minor virus.

 

 

This is natural selection, not slaughter. 

minor virus.

lol

[zahidf]

Missing Wales but look at that crash

 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Missing Wales but look at that crash

 

It's all over. How disappointing, I was looking forward to plan B.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It's all over. How disappointing, I was looking forward to plan B.

Yup. All those calling for these ridiculous restrictions can get back in their box for another couple of weeks

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Yup. All those calling for these ridiculous restrictions can get back in their box for another couple of weeks

yeah, see you in a fortnight.

[zahidf]

The lockdown lovers knew that they had one last chance to keep everyone in restrictions,  because falling cases without any NPIs destroys their case. What they wanted was for lockdown to be introduced last week, hence the massive campaign around Plan B and general doom mongering. That way their measures would be credited for the coming fall in cases despite it being more likely that we've hit close to herd immunity for delta with our current levels of indoor socialising. Thankfully Boris ignored them

[Fuzzy Afro]

It’s all over for fake SAGE 😂😂😂

 

 

Deepti 😂

Pagel 😂😂

 

 

 

 

Clarke 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂