Coronavirus

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Decimal point in the wrong place? 0.5-1% of 7.8 billion people is 39-78 million deaths

Whoops, I did put that an order of magnitude out. Didn't realise I put it as that either. Good thing someone noticed, though strange that it took this many posts. 

7 minutes ago, Andicis said:

You must be using hilariously poor numbers if you think 1 in 14 people on the planet would die if the virus got left to it. And you say that's before deaths due to healthcare being overwhelmed. That's mental. Just admit you pulled the figure from thin air and don't double down. 

 

As noted above, I left in an extra 0. It should be 1 in 140ish, methodology described above. 

[Gone]

17 minutes ago, Albert said:

you get subculture calling for the deaths of others so they can get a pint, yet even with all that 1 million people have already died in 1 month.

Ok, you think people are making the noises they are so they can get a pint?  Another one who doesn’t read anything posted properly.

and 1 million dead in a month, are you Diane Abbott posting under the guise of Albert? 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

Nowhere, because I'm not claiming that, you are. Your suggestion was that masks aren't helping, and are making things worse. The only way this could be the case is if their use led to people being reckless, hence 'behaving poorly'. Your previous comment makes it clear that this is your wider view on the point as you referred to people 'congregating in the streets' due to pubs closing at 10 pm. 

You used the term behaving poorly, not me.

I said the introduction of masks appears to have led to people forgetting about social distancing.

The congregating outside of pubs is a completely separate issue bought about by other measures.

[Albert]

Just now, TexasRam said:

Ok, you think people are making the noises they are so they can get a pint?  Another one who doesn’t read anything posted properly.

and 1 million dead in a month, are you Diane Abbott posting under the guise of Albert? 

It was meant to say a year, but it seems my typing is breaking down. It's late. 

I have read it all, but the thought process is pretty simple. There are concerns regarding restrictions, it has been noted that the way out of restrictions, as shown elsewhere, is by bringing the numbers to zero, as many areas have successfully done. Anything else is just calling for more waves, which in turn either ends up back in restrictions, or with more serious issues. 

[Albert]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

You used the term behaving poorly, not me.

I said the introduction of masks appears to have led to people forgetting about social distancing.

The congregating outside of pubs is a completely separate issue bought about by other measures.

People forgetting about social distancing would indeed be people behaving poorly, which is the one. It was your claim, not mine. 

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

it has been noted that the way out of restrictions, as shown elsewhere, is by bringing the numbers to zero, as many areas have successfully done. Anything else is just calling for more waves, which in turn either ends up back in restrictions, or with more serious issues. 

How can you bring somewhere like the UK to zero without closing the borders? Serious question. Heathrow is an international hub, it'll just keep coming back from other places. 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

How can you bring somewhere like the UK to zero without closing the borders? Serious question. Heathrow is an international hub, it'll just keep coming back from other places. 

The answer is pretty simple, you realistically can't without some kind of restrictions around travel. Models around the World show how this can be done, but ultimately you would need some kind of firewall around Heathrow to the rest of the country. 

If 'normal' isn't worth the tradeoff though, that's really what the decision is. 

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

People forgetting about social distancing would indeed be people behaving poorly, which is the one. It was your claim, not mine. 

No it would be people thinking that they are wearing a mask which supposedly stops the spread of the virus so there is no need for social distancing. 

[Gone]

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

is by bringing the numbers to zero, as many areas have successfully done

Name more than one densely populated City where the numbers have been brought to zero for a sustained period.

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

The answer is pretty simple, you realistically can't without some kind of restrictions around travel. Models around the World show how this can be done, but ultimately you would need some kind of firewall around Heathrow to the rest of the country. 

If 'normal' isn't worth the tradeoff though, that's really what the decision is. 

Unless everyone was not allowed to leave the airports until 2 weeks had passed, I don't see how that could work. But furthermore, even without that element, without being draconian, how do you get the rest of the UK down to zero? 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

No it would be people thinking that they are wearing a mask which supposedly stops the spread of the virus so there is no need for social distancing. 

Who ever said 'stops'? 

It reduces spread, meaning their use with other controls is effective. If people are using them as a way of them ignoring other controls, then that is indeed them behaving poorly, as you noted. 

It's like a seatbelt. Just because you have them doesn't mean you should be driving foot to the floor. 

[Chester40]

10 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Ok, you think people are making the noises they are so they can get a pint?  Another one who doesn’t read anything posted properly.

and 1 million dead in a month, are you Diane Abbott posting under the guise of Albert? 

That's the kind of extreme angle that prevents open discussion. 

Would @Albertbe likewise ok to accept then that as an example, the estimated 8,000+ women who may now be living with undiagnosed breast cancer are due to lazy people who are simply hiding behind minimal risk whilst sitting on their backside claiming furlough? 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

Who ever said 'stops'? 

It reduces spread, meaning their use with other controls is effective. If people are using them as a way of them ignoring other controls, then that is indeed them behaving poorly, as you noted. 

It's like a seatbelt. Just because you have them doesn't mean you should be driving foot to the floor. 

So masks reduces the spread.

What is causing cases to allegedly rise so drastically?

What has changed since masks were introduced?

 

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Name more than one densely populated City where the numbers have been brought to zero for a sustained period.

Define densely populated. 

Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane would be top 10 metropolitan areas if they were in the UK. Due to how the ABS and ONS classify such differently though, it's hard to directly compare their population densities. Australian cities are always quoted as being their 'full extent' so to speak, and sprawl far into the rural areas, which reduces the gross population density figure. The density in the cities however is a match for all but London in the UK. 

There's Auckland as well, and that's just keeping in the obvious ones. 

Going elsewhere, you have Taipei, as well as the other major cities in Taiwan, as well as cities in Vietnam. I would be surprised to hear it claimed that these cities were not densely populated. 

[Albert]

14 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

That's the kind of extreme angle that prevents open discussion. 

Would @Albertbe likewise ok to accept then that as an example, the estimated 8,000+ women who may now be living with undiagnosed breast cancer are due to lazy people who are simply hiding behind minimal risk whilst sitting on their backside claiming furlough? 

Did I ever say they, or anyone else, was lazy? 

You see, your comment is the kind of lazy that stifles discussion. Maybe actually read my comments before trying to drastically misrepresent them. 

[Gone]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

Define densely populated. 

Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane would be top 10 metropolitan areas if they were in the UK. Due to how the ABS and ONS classify such differently though, it's hard to directly compare their population densities. Australian cities are always quoted as being their 'full extent' so to speak, and sprawl far into the rural areas, which reduces the gross population density figure. The density in the cities however is a match for all but London in the UK. 

There's Auckland as well, and that's just keeping in the obvious ones. 

Going elsewhere, you have Taipei, as well as the other major cities in Taiwan, as well as cities in Vietnam. I would be surprised to hear it claimed that these cities were not densely populated. 

And how long did these Cities keep the numbers at zero for? Do they have testing set up as per other countries and are they recording them? And so on and so on and so on.

[Albert]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So masks reduces the spread.

What is causing cases to allegedly rise so drastically?

What has changed since masks were introduced?

 

Well, there's a few things here. For one, you've not demonstrated that mask use is correlated with the rise. Additionally, the whole point with the masks is that the rise was already happening. 

To get back to the central point though, you're claiming that masks caused this, which goes against all research regarding them. This is fine, but the implication is that you're saying that people must be behaving inappropriately because they make them overconfident. That, however, would be an issue with mindset and behaviour, not masks. 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

And how long did these Cities keep the numbers at zero for? Do they have testing set up as per other countries and are they recording them? And so on and so on and so on.

Yes, they all have strong testing regimes. This is particularly the case with the cities in Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan. It's one of the central pillars of how they got into the position they are. 

In terms of specifics about how long it's been at zero, it depends on how you define it. It's been 55 days since the last new case from Adelaide, but only about a week since the last new case from someone returned from overseas. People returned from overseas are quarantined, however, and pose no threat to the wider community. 

[Uptherams]

I remember when we could go indoors without having to wear a mask and there were no spikes in infections or hospitisations or deaths. 

I would love to know how people can explain Gym's still being open up and down the country. You'd think considering no one wears masks in gyms, and masks are so effective, that there would have been localised spikes at many gyms. Nope. 

 

[bcnram]

1 minute ago, Uptherams said:

I remember when we could go indoors without having to wear a mask and there were no spikes in infections or hospitisations or deaths. 

I would love to know how people can explain Gym's still being open up and down the country. You'd think considering no one wears masks in gyms, and masks are so effective, that there would have been localised spikes at many gyms. Nope. 

 

Maybe because people are not generally in close proximity to each other in a gym like they are in a store or bar.