Corona virus

[DC2]

30 minutes ago, stewmac said:

Going back to my first comment, which was in reply to your claim that deaths are being over reported, you have said nothing to back up your claim. 

 

Well, that’s quite simple.

It’s been admitted that some figures have included deaths where Covid has been suspected rather than confirmed by testing.

And it’s clear that where Covid is included as one of two or three “causes” on a death certificate it may not have caused the death.

From the BBC:

”Is coronavirus causing the deaths?

The death figures being reported daily are hospital cases where a person dies with the coronavirus infection in their body - because it is a notifiable disease cases have to be reported.

But what the figures do not tell us is to what extent the virus is causing the death.

It could be the major cause, a contributory factor or simply present when they are dying of something else.”

Edited April 10, 2020 by DC2

[lucifer sam]

38 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Well they do most winters..

I know of a care home that had 19 die in two days a couple of years ago.

Around 3000 a week die from flu/pneumonia in England and Wales alone during the months of Dec-February and around 2500 a week in March.

We have 'flu vaccines to try to aid with that - we don't have a Covid-19 vaccine. Surely you understand that key and absolutely massive difference?  It's why it's not necessary to lock down every time we have a 'flu outbreak, but it is during the current outbreak of Covid-19. It's very different.  Of course, the 'flu is mutating every single year and therefore sadly, there are still deaths, but many are prevented. That's not to say every death is not tragic - it is.

But Covid-19 and 'flu are not the same thing, due to the current lack of vaccine for one of them. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by lucifer sam

[DC2]

3 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

We have 'flu vaccines to try to aid with that - we don't have a Covid-19 vaccine. Surely you understand that key and absolutely massive difference?  It's why it's not necessary to lock down every time we have a 'flu outbreak, but it is during the current outbreak of Covid-19. It's very different.  Of course, the 'flu is mutating every single year and therefore sadly, there are still deaths, but many are prevented. That's not to say every death is not tragic - it is.

But Covid-19 and 'flu are not the same thing, due to the current lack of vaccine for one of them. 

 

When flu killed 28,500 people in the UK in 2014/15, was there a case for some sort of lockdown the following winter?

 

[BluPanther]

1 minute ago, lucifer sam said:

We have 'flu vaccines to try to aid with that - we don't have a Covid-19 vaccine. Surely you understand that key and absolutely massive difference?  It's why it's not necessary to lock down every time we have a 'flu outbreak, but it is during the current outbreak. It's very different.  Of course, the 'flu is mutating every single year and therefore sadly, there are still deaths, but many are prevented. That's not to say every death is not tragic - it is.

But Covid-19 and 'flu are not the same thing, due to the current lack of vaccine for one of them. 

So as covid19 is a cousin of the common cold, if it comes back mutated next year, there will be no effective vaccine against it. Should we lockdown every year in your opinion ? Just asking ...

[BWitcher]

13 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

We have 'flu vaccines to try to aid with that - we don't have a Covid-19 vaccine. Surely you understand that key and absolutely massive difference?  It's why it's not necessary to lock down every time we have a 'flu outbreak, but it is during the current outbreak of Covid-19. It's very different.  Of course, the 'flu is mutating every single year and therefore sadly, there are still deaths, but many are prevented. That's not to say every death is not tragic - it is.

But Covid-19 and 'flu are not the same thing, due to the current lack of vaccine for one of them. 

An average of 34,000 people have died between Jan and the end of March over the last five years. from flu/pneumonia.

Sure, there's a vaccine but that will only cover one of the strains and even then isn't guaranteed... and as a result 34,000 people are dying.

So why do we not lock down? After all, those deaths are caused from social contact.

Effectively, what you are saying is, those 34,000 don't count.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by BWitcher

[BWitcher]

11 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

When flu killed 28,500 people in the UK in 2014/15, was there a case for some sort of lockdown the following winter?

 

You're underplaying it. That's just flu... it doesn't include pneumonia deaths which are another 100,000 or so deaths. At least 1/3 of which come from flu.. the rest from other viruses contracted from social contact.

So basically 100,000+ deaths.. no lockdown necessary. They're expendable.

Edited April 10, 2020 by BWitcher

[waytogo28]

I am coming round to accepting the theory that we should have let the virus run it's course. It would have swept away up to 250,000 vulnerable and elderly but I think that the cure ( economically ) is going to be much more costly than the disease, in the long term for the rest of society. I would have been ( may well be ) one of those VE people who pass away.

[DC2]

21 minutes ago, waytogo28 said:

I am coming round to accepting the theory that we should have let the virus run it's course. It would have swept away up to 250,000 vulnerable and elderly but I think that the cure ( economically ) is going to be much more costly than the disease, in the long term for the rest of society. I would have been ( may well be ) one of those VE people who pass away.

 

There is no evidence that it would have killed 250,000.

And could we not have protected the vulnerable and elderly sooner and with better measures?  We could see from Italy that they were especially at risk.  We might have had only 20,000 deaths then.

 

[E I Addio]

28 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

There is no evidence that it would have killed 250,000.

And could we not have protected the vulnerable and elderly sooner and with better measures?  We could see from Italy that they were especially at risk.  We might have had only 20,000 deaths then.

 

There is no true evidence that it would have killed any number. That is the problem. We are dealing with a disease that is not properly understood and every body is playing catch up based on models, assumption, experience and inspired guesses. The top line figures ( one of which estimated half a million deaths ) assumed no action taken at all but of course action is taken but it is a blunt instrument and nobody quite knew in advance how effective it would be.

We can’t protect the elderly. They, like everyone else have to exercise good sense and protect themselves. Going on cruises, and taking their camper vans down to Newquay or going to  off the gee-gees at Cheltenham, all of which many have done is not really good sense.

Unfortunately the government can’t rely on common sense among the population as a whole. They have to work to and advise to the lowest common denominator, and the more stupid the behaviour of the minority the lower the lowest common denominator has to be, even though it is a pain to the rest.

Edited April 11, 2020 by E I Addio

[Sidney the robin]

16 hours ago, BWitcher said:

You're underplaying it. That's just flu... it doesn't include pneumonia deaths which are another 100,000 or so deaths. At least 1/3 of which come from flu.. the rest from other viruses contracted from social contact.

So basically 100,000+ deaths.. no lockdown necessary. They're expendable.

Do you think a Lockdown for the over 70s only for a period Witcher could of been an option? .All resources kept for that age group and go from there one of my friends Rod who was 75 on April 2nd said he has to go out for a walk.He is crawling the walls he knows he is vulnerable but feels WEAKER by not having his usual regular exercise as you said the virus breeds inside confined spaces.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Sidney the robin

[lucifer sam]

40 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

There is no evidence that it would have killed 250,000.

And could we not have protected the vulnerable and elderly sooner and with better measures?  We could see from Italy that they were especially at risk.  We might have had only 20,000 deaths then.

 

No evidence on any number. It could have killed 2 million without a lockdown. We just don't know. We have to rely on the medical experts on how we deal with a virus for which we don't have a vaccine. None of us are experts. What I do understand is that it's R (the re-infection rate) which is the critical number.  But we have to listen to medical and scientific advice. You're not an expert. Neither am I.

Edited April 11, 2020 by lucifer sam

[BluPanther]

3 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

No evidence on any number. It could have killed 2 million without a lockdown. We just don't know. We have to rely on the medical experts on how we deal with a virus for which we don't have a vaccine. None of us are experts. What I do understand is that it's R (the re-infection rate) which is the critical number.  But we have to listen to medical and scientific advice. You're not an expert. Neither am I.

Neither is Ferguson going by his dubious record of failed 'modelling'. We are the experiment imo, not Sweden. I don't think people are grasping the catastrophic financial and social implications of this lockdown...

[DC2]

37 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

We can’t protect the elderly. They, like everyone else have to exercise good sense and protect themselves.

Going on cruises, and taking their camper vans down to Newquay or going to  off the gee-gees at Cheltenham, all of which many have done is not really good sense.

 

Of course we could protect the elderly and those with vulnerable medical conditions.

The government told 1.5 million vulnerable people they would have to isolate for 12 weeks.

That was a month too late and 15 million people too few.

Every person over 65 or ill should be under special measures. 

Regularly tested.

No contact with others who have not been tested.

Support workers and their families to be restricted in their movements (and not allowed to shop).

No deliveries that have not been disinfected.

But encouraged to take in exercise, fresh air and sun in their gardens, not locked indoors.

The rest of us could then have enjoyed a lighter touch with sensible measures and continued to work.

 

[E I Addio]

2 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

Of course we could protect the elderly and those with vulnerable medical conditions.

The government told 1.5 million vulnerable people they would have to isolate for 12 weeks.

That was a month too late and 15 million people too few.

Every person over 65 or ill should be under special measures. 

Regularly tested.

No contact with others who have not been tested.

Support workers and their families to be restricted in their movements (and not allowed to shop).

No deliveries that have not been disinfected.

But encouraged to take in exercise, fresh air and sun in their gardens, not locked indoors.

The rest of us could then have enjoyed a lighter touch with sensible measures and continued to work.

 

And those who are 64 ? Do they suddenly start staying in ? Like a lot of things in this, any figures will be completely arbitrary .

[DC2]

Just now, E I Addio said:

And those who are 64 ? Do they suddenly start staying in ? Like a lot of things in this, any figures will be completely arbitrary .

 

Not as arbitrary as keeping the whole population isolated and the economy stalled without a compelling reason.

 

[E I Addio]

2 hours ago, Blupanther said:

Neither is Ferguson going by his dubious record of failed 'modelling'. We are the experiment imo, not Sweden. I don't think people are grasping the catastrophic financial and social implications of this lockdown...

Some are grasping it some aren’t. Same with the social distance rules. Some are behaving sensibly others as if they have a death wish. That is a big part of the problem

[DC2]

7 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Some are grasping it some aren’t. Same with the social distance rules. Some are behaving sensibly others as if they have a death wish. That is a big part of the problem

 

“Death wish”?

You are perpetuating a myth

While people sunbathing in public parks may quite rightly be criticised for not following government guidelines, they are almost certainly not passing on the virus to each other, let alone being guilty of having a “death wish”.

Contact is much closer in a supermarket and yet that is not a “death wish”.

Edited April 11, 2020 by DC2

[Ray Stadia]

19 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Some are grasping it some aren’t. Same with the social distance rules. Some are behaving sensibly others as if they have a death wish. That is a big part of the problem

I had to go to the bank last week, Barclays and NatWest. Obviously I had to queue outside. While in each queue, I witnessed a gaggle of men, around 2 maybe 3, shaking the hand of someone in the queue. Nobody said anything, including me. If I had said something, I could end up having an argument or worse, which would ramp up the danger for us all who were in the queues. By the way, not sure if this is significant, but in both cases the men spoke in a foreign language. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Ray Stadia

[IainB]

3 hours ago, E I Addio said:

There is no true evidence that it would have killed any number. That is the problem. We are dealing with a disease that is not properly understood and every body is playing catch up based on models, assumption, experience and inspired guesses. The top line figures ( one of which estimated half a million deaths ) assumed no action taken at all but of course action is taken but it is a blunt instrument and nobody quite knew in advance how effective it would be.

We can’t protect the elderly. They, like everyone else have to exercise good sense and protect themselves. Going on cruises, and taking their camper vans down to Newquay or going to  off the gee-gees at Cheltenham, all of which many have done is not really good sense.

Unfortunately the government can’t rely on common sense among the population as a whole. They have to work to and advise to the lowest common denominator, and the more stupid the behaviour of the minority the lower the lowest common denominator has to be, even though it is a pain to the rest.

You're right there is no true evidence, a bit like the consequences of Brexit, some think it'll be a dawn of a new golden era other's think it'll be the end of the country, truth is we just don't know until it happens. The difference with this pandemic though is that there have been scientific models done based on good data, taking me back to one of my original posts in this thread regarding the BBC Pandemic program that aired a couple of years back and certainly got my alarm bells ringing when all this kicked off. That model said that if the whole country suffered a "standard" flu pandemic with a mortality rate of 1% and no action taken there would be around 500,000 deaths, that was based on "standard" flu where symptoms show within hours of you catching the virus, as we know it can take a couple of weeks for this virus to present and although we don't know for sure the mortality rate seems to be a lot higher than 1%... so add half a million for every percentage point increase in mortality rate

[iris123]

10 minutes ago, Ray Stadia said:

I had to go to the bank last week, Barclays and NatWest. Obviously I had to queue outside. While in each queue, I witnessed a gaggle of men, around 2 maybe 3, shaking the hand of someone in the queue. Nobody said anything, including me. If I had said something, I could end up having an argument or worse, which would ramp up the danger for us all who were in the queues. By the way, not sure if this is significant, but in both cases the men spoke with foreign accents. 

I was at the local Turkish supermarket earlier and it was all very strict there. I was very impressed.