Chester40 Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 28 minutes ago, Eddie said: Because it's apparently safer, statistically, to leave the UK and to spend a week in Turkey or Poland than it is just staying put in the UK. Your reward for reducing the risk to others by going away to a country where you have a lower chance of contracting the disease is two weeks quarantine. Don't you see that as just a little bit bonkers? I'm really not sure that is correct? - presume going on a plane, lots of travelling etc raises your risk level way above the average for either country - but I still find it a very amusing and satisfying point regardless!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 It is not illegal to ignore an alert from the Covid Smartphone App to self-isolate. It is illegal to not self-isolate after being informed by an NHS worker* that one has tested positive, or been in close contact with someone who has. It is illegal for someone who is required to self-isolate not to inform their employer (agency etc) as soon as practicable and before their next shift is due to begin, of their self-isolation dates. Both offences carry a £1,000 fixed penalty for a first offence! If you download the App, the information will remain anonymous, and you can make your own decisions about whether or not to self-isolate based upon your awareness of the factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 21 minutes ago, Chester40 said: I'm really not sure that is correct? - presume going on a plane, lots of travelling etc raises your risk level way above the average for either country - but I still find it a very amusing and satisfying point regardless!! From the New Scientist article; Coronavirus rates have been higher among people who have travelled abroad Rates of people testing positive for the coronavirus within communities in England in recent weeks were higher among people who had travelled abroad, according to analysis by the Office for National Statistics. About one in 286 people who said they had travelled abroad within the previous 30 days are estimated to have tested positive for the virus on 10 September, compared to about one in 1000 who said they hadn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 8 hours ago, maxjam said: No, as I stated earlier it is down to a multitude of factors. And the long term effect of a recession or missed Doctors appointments etc won't be known for a long time. I haven't downplayed the pandemic. I supported the first lockdown but the data suggests now that if you are under 60 and healthy the chances of you dying from covid are tiny. Take precautions but for those that want to, get back to 'normal'. I presented some data in an earlier post that showed 30k+ cancer operations had been delayed - as we all know the sooner you catch at treat cancer the better your survival chances. Also, 1m woman will now not have a mammogram and cancer referrals are down 60%. Cancer is one of the biggest killers in the UK, these won't be insignificant numbers. Add on to that other missed illnesses and the humanitarian consequences of a massive recession we could very well lose more at a later date than we ever would have to the virus. And to repeat my point, I believe in the UK and peoples willingness to manage their own risk and get back to working/living. Idly stumbling by week to week is living in limbo preying for a vaccine that may or may not be forthcoming in the near/not-so-near future so we can get back to normal. Be proactive and manage your own risk, shield if you need to shield otherwise get back to work and living your life. Why does it annoy you Neil? They are at virtually no risk. If you are vulnerable or uncomfortable mixing with people take your own precautions, wear a mask, practice social distancing and do as my parents do, speak to your kids/grandkids once a week on the front lawn. Herd mentality used to be an option, allow it to pass through the population that is largely immune to its more severe effects. We are much more informed these days as to who it effects and who should be shielding and how. The alternative is to drive the economy into the ground and risk massive numbers of secondary deaths further down the line whilst we endure further lockdowns waiting for a vaccine that has no definite arrival time. Feel free to respond but as I mentioned in my reply to Gboro I've made my argument enough times now that its getting boring repeating it. The only way to see if what I'm harping on about is complete nonsense or not is to jump forwards in time a year or two so I'll leave it here. A multitude of factors? What 'multitude of factors? Countries as varied as Australia, Taiwan and Vietnam have achieved it. There's less in common between those three than there are between those three than between the UK, Australia and New Zealand. As to the long term effects, nobody is denying or 'downplaying it'. The point is that the only way to get back to normal on that front is to take the pressure off the health system, which can, as shown, only be done through lockdowns. Calls for anything else is, by definition, preventing that. In effect, what you're doing here is raising a point against your own argument. The chances of deaths from Covid from people under 60 is small, but not negligible. There is also a growing body of evidence that people are 60 are getting long term health complications, so if you're only in this argument for selfish reasons, you should show more caution. As to the broader point on the above though, the best way to protect the vulnerable is to not let the disease spread at all. Over a fifth of the UK's population is over 60 as things stand, there is an equally sizable fraction of people who have comorbidities that put them at significant risk. Saying 'just lock those people down' is, in effect, putting a massive chunk of the population into lockdowns, which will be hard to manage and enforce. Not least of which is because you'd have to have people in permanent lockdowns with them to take care of many of them. Equally, young people can and do still get sick, which will still bring the NHS to its knees if this is allowed to burn through the rest of the population. That would see the deaths of more young people than you'd normally see, and equally, lead to more issues with other conditions, as you raised before. To repeat the point from earlier, the only way that preventative medicine is getting back to normal is if the cases go to zero. The hospitals will always be dealing with acute disease first, and because of how contagious Covid is, left to burn through over half the population, it will prevent such from getting back to normal. As noted, people are bad at managing their own risk, as the pathogen is invisible. Just letting it spread is a horrible idea, and will only prevent others from getting vital treatments. If the UK went down the route of other countries, all this could be managed far more effectively. In essence though, the reason you're 'repeating yourself' is because your argument isn't based on a lot, so you just tend to repeat the same, tired, defeated points. The most notable above is you harping on about deferred preventative medicine, which as noted will have an impact, but as also noted cannot be done under what you propose. In effect, your plan is condemning the country to more cancer deaths, on top of all the Covid deaths. Your lack of any plan of how you can isolate over a fifth of the population also lacks any specifics that could make it real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 8 hours ago, TexasRam said: It’s your leg work, I’ve seen it. You want to see it find it. I have nothing to prove to you In other words it's not real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 12 minutes ago, Ken Tram said: It is not illegal to ignore an alert from the Covid Smartphone App to self-isolate. It is illegal to not self-isolate after being informed by an NHS worker* that one has tested positive, or been in close contact with someone who has. It is illegal for someone who is required to self-isolate not to inform their employer (agency etc) as soon as practicable and before their next shift is due to begin, of their self-isolation dates. Both offences carry a £1,000 fixed penalty for a first offence! If you download the App, the information will remain anonymous, and you can make your own decisions about whether or not to self-isolate based upon your awareness of the factors. Hopefully you have read enough to maybe encourage you to download the app. Lots of the early problems seem to have been solved. It can be of great benefit to yourself, plus the data it can feed into the nhs is really very helpful in the fight against Covid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 25 minutes ago, maxjam said: From the New Scientist article; Coronavirus rates have been higher among people who have travelled abroad Rates of people testing positive for the coronavirus within communities in England in recent weeks were higher among people who had travelled abroad, according to analysis by the Office for National Statistics. About one in 286 people who said they had travelled abroad within the previous 30 days are estimated to have tested positive for the virus on 10 September, compared to about one in 1000 who said they hadn’t. Hark at professor MaxJam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, Albert said: In essence though, the reason you're 'repeating yourself' is because your argument isn't based on a lot, so you just tend to repeat the same, tired, defeated points. Ignoring the rest as I've repeated myself enough and everyone has their own entrenched viewpoints its pointless continuing. I wholeheartedly refute your 'tired, defeated points' comment though and have provided several links to sources backing up my points in previous posts. Choose to ignore them if you please and I'll admit that I could be wrong but the only way we'll find out for sure is by zipping forwards in time - until then I stand by my argument that the long term damage will outweigh the short term benefits of continued lockdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tram Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 31 minutes ago, jimmyp said: Hopefully you have read enough to maybe encourage you to download the app. Lots of the early problems seem to have been solved. It can be of great benefit to yourself, plus the data it can feed into the nhs is really very helpful in the fight against Covid. You have prompted me to do it! I have just installed the Android NHS Covid App, and it is up and running on my phone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramit Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 58 minutes ago, maxjam said: Ignoring the rest as I've repeated myself enough and everyone has their own entrenched viewpoints its pointless continuing. I wholeheartedly refute your 'tired, defeated points' comment though and have provided several links to sources backing up my points in previous posts. Choose to ignore them if you please and I'll admit that I could be wrong but the only way we'll find out for sure is by zipping forwards in time - until then I stand by my argument that the long term damage will outweigh the short term benefits of continued lockdowns. It will, Max and i am coming to the conclusion that it's meant to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 52 minutes ago, maxjam said: Ignoring the rest as I've repeated myself enough and everyone has their own entrenched viewpoints its pointless continuing. I wholeheartedly refute your 'tired, defeated points' comment though and have provided several links to sources backing up my points in previous posts. Choose to ignore them if you please and I'll admit that I could be wrong but the only way we'll find out for sure is by zipping forwards in time - until then I stand by my argument that the long term damage will outweigh the short term benefits of continued lockdowns. Which were, in turn, shown to not validate your position. In effect, your position has the following key points: - The lockdowns are doing economic damage, so should be stopped. But it has been shown that the lockdowns are averting larger economic consequences, and that well done lockdowns will improve economic outlook in the mid and long term, as shown by countries such as Australia, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand. - Preventive and elective medicine being deferred will have a human cost. While this is true, it's the disease causing this, not the lockdowns. As noted, there is no way of bringing back preventive and elective medicine while the fire burns, particularly as people who need this are also the people who you claim should just be locked away from society. - The disease isn't that harmful to young people, so lockdown should only impact those at risk. As shown, the disease does indeed kill young people, and the long term costs of infection aren't fully known at this time. We already know that it can cause liver, lung, heart and brain injury that persists long after infection, and this can and has happened to people who were symptomatic. There are concerns that the disease could cause a generation of people with such problems, which would be a massive burden on society, which can be avoided, as noted. Equally, what you're proposing is locking down more than a fifth of the country, which logistically would be a nightmare. Who is providing for these people through this time? Equally, what happens when the number of cases spikes high enough to bring the NHS to its knees anyhow? Overall, your argument rests on pillars of points that are at best poorly justified, and at worst outright contradictory. We don't need to 'zip forward' in time to see any of that, as there are readily available examples from elsewhere of what happens when such mistakes are made, as well as what can happen when you choose to go down the 'to zero' route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Chester40 said: I'm really not sure that is correct? - presume going on a plane, lots of travelling etc raises your risk level way above the average for either country - but I still find it a very amusing and satisfying point regardless!! I don't think there's much we can describe as absolutely correct any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Donald Trump, and is wife Melania, have tested positive for Covid-19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 8 hours ago, Albert said: In other words it's not real. ??????? whatever pal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 7 hours ago, Albert said: Which were, in turn, shown to not validate your position. In effect, your position has the following key points: - The lockdowns are doing economic damage, so should be stopped. But it has been shown that the lockdowns are averting larger economic consequences, and that well done lockdowns will improve economic outlook in the mid and long term, as shown by countries such as Australia, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand. - Preventive and elective medicine being deferred will have a human cost. While this is true, it's the disease causing this, not the lockdowns. As noted, there is no way of bringing back preventive and elective medicine while the fire burns, particularly as people who need this are also the people who you claim should just be locked away from society. - The disease isn't that harmful to young people, so lockdown should only impact those at risk. As shown, the disease does indeed kill young people, and the long term costs of infection aren't fully known at this time. We already know that it can cause liver, lung, heart and brain injury that persists long after infection, and this can and has happened to people who were symptomatic. There are concerns that the disease could cause a generation of people with such problems, which would be a massive burden on society, which can be avoided, as noted. Equally, what you're proposing is locking down more than a fifth of the country, which logistically would be a nightmare. Who is providing for these people through this time? Equally, what happens when the number of cases spikes high enough to bring the NHS to its knees anyhow? Overall, your argument rests on pillars of points that are at best poorly justified, and at worst outright contradictory. We don't need to 'zip forward' in time to see any of that, as there are readily available examples from elsewhere of what happens when such mistakes are made, as well as what can happen when you choose to go down the 'to zero' route. You can't zip forward in time but, to some extent, you can zip back in time… You might be interested in some studies that have compared health and economic data from US cities that adopted different social distancing policies and strategies in response to the Spanish Flu pandemic. This is nicely summarised here and tends to support the argument you’ve been making over the past few pages of this thread… https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/31/21199874/coronavirus-spanish-flu-social-distancing Basically, back in 1918-1919, the cities that intervened earlier and were more aggressive in using social isolation and quarantining not only ended up with better health outcomes but also better economic outcomes. These cities did just as well economically in the short term during the pandemic and, in the medium term, they grew faster once the pandemic was over. So win, win with respect to both health and economics. Plenty of caveats and limitations to such studies but interesting nonetheless. You might also be interested in preliminary evidence that similar kinds of patterns might be happening with Covid… https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy So far, the data doesn’t really suggest some kind of trade-off between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy. Instead, as you’ve been arguing, the data seems to suggest that controlling the outbreak might be the best overall economic strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ram for All Seasons Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 57 minutes ago, Albert said: Donald Trump, and is wife Melania, have tested positive for Covid-19. Time to get the bleach bottle out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 14 minutes ago, ramesses said: You can't zip forward in time but, to some extent, you can zip back in time… You might be interested in some studies that have compared health and economic data from US cities that adopted different social distancing policies and strategies in response to the Spanish Flu pandemic. This is nicely summarised here and tends to support the argument you’ve been making over the past few pages of this thread… https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/31/21199874/coronavirus-spanish-flu-social-distancing Basically, back in 1918-1919, the cities that intervened earlier and were more aggressive in using social isolation and quarantining not only ended up with better health outcomes but also better economic outcomes. These cities did just as well economically in the short term during the pandemic and, in the medium term, they grew faster once the pandemic was over. So win, win with respect to both health and economics. Plenty of caveats and limitations to such studies but interesting nonetheless. You might also be interested in preliminary evidence that similar kinds of patterns might be happening with Covid… https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy So far, the data doesn’t really suggest some kind of trade-off between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy. Instead, as you’ve been arguing, the data seems to suggest that controlling the outbreak might be the best overall economic strategy. Will read later when I get chance but how did the measures back then compare to them used in the current day? I fail to soo how controlling the virus and doing just as well economically in the short and medium term can reconcile. We literally closed the country down. How can the economy possibly continue to do just as well as normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 17 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: If the posts are going down the route of people not following rules etc will you be posting a pic of Jeremy Corbyn? I seem to remember people really losing their poo when someone else didn't follow the rules. Calls for resignations etc One rule for and one for others etc What short memories people have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtoileSportiveDeDerby Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Trump, Bolsonaro, Bojo, all tested positive to a mischievous virus. Experts call it COVID19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.