Jump to content

Albert

Member
  • Content Count

    5,002
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Albert

  • Rank
    ?

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,602 profile views
  1. As noted, I feel the UK could have done far better out of all this, particularly around supporting those impacted most by the restrictions. That's the biggest tragedy out of all of this. The people who are paying for the errors in not following advice earlier are the very ones the government has refused to support through this.
  2. The point is more about the balance, getting maximum benefit for least harm and all of that. While I don't actually disagree with the sentiment here that the UK's implementation of rules and policies has been an omnishambles, it did successfully slow and turn around infection rates on multiple occasions. I find it fascinating that everyone on here seems to think other groups have found this time easier than themselves. Stocks the spread of the virus from other countries, which helps efforts to contain it in the UK. This is particularly important with the risks posed
  3. While I agree with the central idea here, @Archied does indeed press the idea that there's something more sinister behind the lockdowns. Personally, I wouldn't attribute to malice what is better explained by incompetence. Australia gave up on pretending workplaces, etc were secure a long time ago. Now the aim is to record down who has gone to which public places when, and do contact tracing. This allows outbreaks to be rapidly contained by ringfencing. This has worked remarkably well, despite some breaches of hotel quarantine, usually staff catching the disease and bringing it home.
  4. Growing up, I had a friend who despised hospitals. Their reason? When a relative of theirs went to hospital, they usually didn't come back. Why was this? Well, they had a truly massive extended family, and culturally, they tended not to go to the doctor until they were very seriously ill. Now, a few of their relatives thought this way too, which is why they didn't go and see a doctor until things had gotten very bad for them, usually going to casualty as opposed to their GP. It wasn't until that friend was in their 20s that it really clicked to them that they should probably see a doctor
  5. If you're sick of people calling you out for laughing at deaths, maybe stop laughing at deaths. Just a thought. I'm not sure where you've gotten this 'understand everything in the universe better than anybody else with ease' line from. It seems you take someone actually doing some research into points before wildly posting random hottakes to mean someone feels they're somehow better. I don't, and personally, I think arguments should stand apart from who has written them. Someone who knows better can make an appallingly weak argument, someone who doesn't, with proper research, can make a
  6. The sooner the spread is ended, the better for everyone. That isn't just about vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated, but also about the risks of other variants, that the vaccine impacts less, etc, spreading in the community. Having high risk groups sorted earlier will help with that, but again, keeping that R number below 1 will be crucial if life is actually going to return to normal.
  7. I don't recall claiming to be an authority on living through any kind of lockdown. As noted, I've been in lockdown for a whole two days since April. The point is, however, that the data speaks for itself. The choices made led to this current situation, and notably, the government did go against advice, notably avoiding a circuit breaker lockdown in September which could have, at the very least, slowed what happened since. Coming out of the lockdown back into the tiers also very wrong, though this has all been discussed to death on here. So, wait, you're laughing at those deaths
  8. I'm not sure why you keep repeating data that is not being disputed. Again, the results for the vaccine are very promising, which is a good thing. What you keep ignoring though is that these infection rates are for a country still trying to control the virus, which is helping suppress spread. The issue with opening up is that we need to be sure that the vaccines are enough to keep that trend going, and for it not to reverse. It is very unlikely to reverse on current numbers, but a staged reopening. To put that another way, the 'only 0.004% people people caught Covid' point is moot for th
  9. Post discussing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. @Archied: *Laughs*
  10. ...you know herd immunity is the whole point of a nationwide immunisation program right. The numbers are looking good though. Seems the government saved all their competence for the vaccine rollout. Won't save the hundred thousand who are already lost, but might just save the country long term. Just have to keep that R number below 1, and things could well start returning to normal in the coming months.
  11. It's hard to quantify at this time. It depends on demographic factors, as well as whether the vaccine has an equal response across age groups. We also aren't sure how long the vaccines actually work for yet, though the vaccine coupled with continued restrictions for a time should make that concern less of an issue.
  12. I'm not sure how repeating figures we both agree on is changing anything here. Scaling the figure isn't really helpful though, as the concern isn't if the infection rates remain the same, but rather, if rates of vaccination, or long term effectiveness, isn't enough to keep the under number under 1. As we know from the numbers we've just posted, people do still get seriously ill (around 5% on that sample), so if the R number isn't maintained below 1, then the numbers remaining low in Israel for this set is rather moot. That's the thing though, you've never really given a good reason
  13. It's almost like you don't bother reading: The reason I answered the point about climate and demographics was because, you know, they were wrong about calling them very similar. I also pointed out the issue of how it was inconsistent with their previous arguments. As I've previous noted, such as the above, I don't think the point about demographics and climate is a major one, as long as a country has demonstrated that restrictions can bring the R number below 1, which the UK has demonstrated.
  14. I have not skipped over this, we have, in fact, discussed it at length. We have also discussed this at length, though the way you represent this would represent 50% of people being hospitalised, which isn't a good figure to see. These points were at no point skipped over, they are actually at the core of what I have discussed with you. You've again avoided point 1. The point is that these people don't get vaccines as they cannot take them, ie the immunocompromised, etc. It's not 'warped maths', it's literally the whole point. The source you've provided had 5% of peop
  15. Yep. But the two points you just skip over each and every time, for obvious reasons, are: 1. Not everyone can develop immunity from vaccination; these people are not involved in such trials. 2. The implication of the data is that severe cases still occur at a similar rate to the unvaccinated population, the difference is people not actually getting the disease at all. This implies that keeping the R number below 1 should be the aim. 9% was from the numbers as posted by @BIllyD. On these numbers is 5%.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.