Coronavirus

[Albert]

42 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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?

When they say 'do just as well', they mean just as well as places that have not. 

The economic damage is largely being driven by the pandemic and its direct impacts, not by policies attempting to control it. For places that locked down hard, and early, they have been able to resume life, at least partially, as it was. Places that haven't will be stuck with longer term economic impacts from the virus. In effect, they're getting the worst of both Worlds on that front. 

[maxjam]

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. 

I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post, you are obviously far more passionate about the subject than I am.  As previously stated however not only have I repeated my argument enough times now that its getting boring, people are beginning to get fed up with the continual back and forth.

I do reject your 'tired, defeated points' comment though as my argument literally can not be defeated at this point in time as its based on a future outcome.  You can come up with a convincing argument to defend your point of view just as easily as I can produce an argument defending my point of view - for example, a Government report warning of 200k non covid deaths;

https://www.theweek.co.uk/107564/could-more-people-die-from-lockdown-than-from-coronavirus

Also, in response to @ramesses point about Spanish Flu the world is a very different place now than it was back then both socially and economically etc.  How many people could give life saving cancer treatment to back in 1918 and how many will we condemn to death delaying treatment today?  Don't answer that, its a rhetorical question.

Ultimately we're in a lose, lose situation and many people are going to die from both covid and our response to trying to contain covid I just happen to think that through our actions we could be making things significantly worse than they would have been anyway.

I've tried to back out of this discussion several times now and this will really be my final post, if you do take the time in replying please understand that with respect it will not receive a reply from me ?

 

 

[Shuff264]

Looks like we might be over the worst of this second wave, but I'd reserve judgement until next week.

Whether you think this is because of or in spite of restrictions, we can all agree this is a good thing.

Based on the most recent local data, roughly a week old, cases in Derby are not falling having risen consistently for the 7 days prior. Again this is good news.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post, you are obviously far more passionate about the subject than I am.  As previously stated however not only have I repeated my argument enough times now that its getting boring, people are beginning to get fed up with the continual back and forth.

I do reject your 'tired, defeated points' comment though as my argument literally can not be defeated at this point in time as its based on a future outcome.  You can come up with a convincing argument to defend your point of view just as easily as I can produce an argument defending my point of view - for example, a Government report warning of 200k non covid deaths;

https://www.theweek.co.uk/107564/could-more-people-die-from-lockdown-than-from-coronavirus

Also, in response to @ramesses point about Spanish Flu the world is a very different place now than it was back then both socially and economically etc.  How many people could give life saving cancer treatment to back in 1918 and how many will we condemn to death delaying treatment today?  Don't answer that, its a rhetorical question.

Ultimately we're in a lose, lose situation and many people are going to die from both covid and our response to trying to contain covid I just happen to think that through our actions we could be making things significantly worse than they would have been anyway.

I've tried to back out of this discussion several times now and this will really be my final post, if you do take the time in replying please understand that with respect it will not receive a reply from me ?

 

 

As noted, your consistent, repeated point about cancer treatments has been completely, and thoroughly, disproven. There is no conceivable way that 'lockdowns' are the cause of the problem you suggest, and a lack of them out only exacerbate the issue. The only way that preventative and elective medicine can return to normal is for the numbers to go down, ideally to zero, and the only way of achieving that is through controls to prevent the spread of the disease. 

I fully understand why you've ignored this issue, and ducked it at every turn, and are indeed going to ignore it again. You have no answer to the above, hence just repeating tired, defeated points. 

Equally, saying that, it's also worth noting that saying it's 'based on a future outcome', is also a point that has been defeated, as we already have examples of countries where these issues have been solved. There is no World in which the UK, having the virus rip through and killing tens of thousands of people, and potentially leaving more than that with permanent organ damage, is a better outcome than countries where the virus is under control, and are already in economic recovery. 

[GboroRam]

10 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!! 

Going on a crowded plane does increase your risk. But if it's crowded with people statistically less likely to have the virus than at home, how does that affect things?

Is it more risky than going to a crowded workplace, or a crowded classroom? Or dining in a crowded restaurant, or drinking in a crowded pub?

It's the lack of consistency that throws me out. We're just playing at control measures. Relaxing them where we think we can get away with it and hoping for the best.

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM 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.

Erm, what are you on about, has your account been taken over by a bot?

This video is of Trump mocking Biden for wearing a mask. Trump has now got Covid, and his lack of mask wearing clearly increased the risk of this happening.

I haven't seen the video of Corbyn mocking others for mask wearing, and then getting Covid. Even if that happened, he is only the former Labour leader anyway, not in charge of a country of 300 million odd people, who is trying to appeal to an ignorant base by mocking his rival for following his own government's advice of preventing Covid transmission.

Did you mean to type Piers Corbyn perhaps?

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Erm, what are you on about, has your account been taken over by a bot?

This video is of Trump mocking Biden for wearing a mask. Trump has now got Covid, and his lack of mask wearing clearly increased the risk of this happening.

I haven't seen the video of Corbyn mocking others for mask wearing, and then getting Covid. Even if that happened, he is only the former Labour leader anyway, not in charge of a country of 300 million odd people, who is trying to appeal to an ignorant base by mocking his rival for following his own government's advice of preventing Covid transmission.

Did you mean to type Piers Corbyn perhaps?

No, it was another whataboutery.

Corbyn was an idiot for breaking rules, as everyone who breaks them is. Happy to confirm if you weren't sure.

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Erm, what are you on about, has your account been taken over by a bot?

This video is of Trump mocking Biden for wearing a mask. Trump has now got Covid, and his lack of mask wearing clearly increased the risk of this happening.

I haven't seen the video of Corbyn mocking others for mask wearing, and then getting Covid. Even if that happened, he is only the former Labour leader anyway, not in charge of a country of 300 million odd people, who is trying to appeal to an ignorant base by mocking his rival for following his own government's advice of preventing Covid transmission.

Did you mean to type Piers Corbyn perhaps?

I somehow guessed that the goalposts would be moved and people would no longer be too interested in politicians breaking rules.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No, it was another whataboutery.

Corbyn was an idiot for breaking rules, as everyone who breaks them is. Happy to confirm if you weren't sure.

 

[Chester40]

47 minutes ago, Albert said:

As noted, your consistent, repeated point about cancer treatments has been completely, and thoroughly, disproven. There is no conceivable way that 'lockdowns' are the cause of the problem you suggest, and a lack of them out only exacerbate the issue. The only way that preventative and elective medicine can return to normal is for the numbers to go down, ideally to zero, and the only way of achieving that is through controls to prevent the spread of the disease. 

I fully understand why you've ignored this issue, and ducked it at every turn, and are indeed going to ignore it again. You have no answer to the above, hence just repeating tired, defeated points. 

Equally, saying that, it's also worth noting that saying it's 'based on a future outcome', is also a point that has been defeated, as we already have examples of countries where these issues have been solved. There is no World in which the UK, having the virus rip through and killing tens of thousands of people, and potentially leaving more than that with permanent organ damage, is a better outcome than countries where the virus is under control, and are already in economic recovery. 

Your ability to circle your own arguments and prove yourself correct is truly a matter of wonder. 

You are talking in absolutes, arguing from a personal point of view that you take as the obvious epicentre.

If there was just one positive case in the whole of the country would you shut the whole country into lockdown?? or deal with it with more precision ??

So, there is a point where lockdown /control goes too far in everyone's book. That is a movable goalpost, some people will agree with some bits of containment but not other bits, find some too intrusive, restrictive, unrealistic, damaging, contradictory... And wholeheartedly agree with others. But you seem to be distilling the whole argument into a black /white, yes/no debate that you have the answer to. Any nuances seem to be lost in a pretty hard and fast 'I have the right answer, 2 +2 is 4 and I will argue that to the death'. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

As noted, your consistent, repeated point about cancer treatments has been completely, and thoroughly, disproven. There is no conceivable way that 'lockdowns' are the cause of the problem you suggest, and a lack of them out only exacerbate the issue. The only way that preventative and elective medicine can return to normal is for the numbers to go down, ideally to zero, and the only way of achieving that is through controls to prevent the spread of the disease. 

I fully understand why you've ignored this issue, and ducked it at every turn, and are indeed going to ignore it again. You have no answer to the above, hence just repeating tired, defeated points. 

Equally, saying that, it's also worth noting that saying it's 'based on a future outcome', is also a point that has been defeated, as we already have examples of countries where these issues have been solved. There is no World in which the UK, having the virus rip through and killing tens of thousands of people, and potentially leaving more than that with permanent organ damage, is a better outcome than countries where the virus is under control, and are already in economic recovery. 

Can you please stop saying you have proven people wrong. You havent.

We are in the middle of the pandemic and nobody knows the outcomes.

[Stive Pesley]

So Trump has Covid19?! Right in the run up to the election

One for the conspiracy theorists perhaps. But I won't go there

Going to be a fascinating couple of weeks though.

Will he become so ill that he is unable to tweet?

Will he end up in ICU like Boris did and manage to garner sympathy from unexpected quarters ("i hate the guy but i don't want him to die")

Will he be such a "tough guy" that it barely affects him, and give him great propaganda points as he can say it's "no worse than a bad cold"

Will it get so bad that the election gets postponed?

 

Kind of hard at this point to separate the topic from politics, so hope we can tread that line. US politics tended to be less contentious on the old Politics thread anyway - as there was general consensus that Biden and Trump were both awful and the US political system is even more broken than ours (and the state of their media even worse!)

 

 

 

 

[ariotofmyown]

24 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I somehow guessed that the goalposts would be moved and people would no longer be too interested in politicians breaking rules.

You do realise that Trump isn't been criticised here for breaking the rules. It's for mocking someone who was following the rules. I'm yet to see any politician in the UK, even Corbyn, mocking other politicians for following the rules.

It's a very weird/reckless thing to do, especially when you are in charge. Now it just looks really stupid as well.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

You do realise that Trump isn't been criticised here for breaking the rules. It's for mocking someone who was following the rules. I'm yet to see any politician in the UK, even Corbyn, mocking other politicians for following the rules.

It's a very weird/reckless thing to do, especially when you are in charge. Now it just looks really stupid as well.

Yeah fair point.

[Albert]

29 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Can you please stop saying you have proven people wrong. You havent.

We are in the middle of the pandemic and nobody knows the outcomes.

The point which have been proven wrong are noted. They are not things that can be shown otherwise in the future, but rather statements of fact as they relate to the current day. The most notable one being around elective and preventative medicine, as noted. 

If you feel I am in error, show how, rather than using cheap throw away lines. 

34 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Your ability to circle your own arguments and prove yourself correct is truly a matter of wonder. 

You are talking in absolutes, arguing from a personal point of view that you take as the obvious epicentre.

If there was just one positive case in the whole of the country would you shut the whole country into lockdown?? or deal with it with more precision ??

So, there is a point where lockdown /control goes too far in everyone's book. That is a movable goalpost, some people will agree with some bits of containment but not other bits, find some too intrusive, restrictive, unrealistic, damaging, contradictory... And wholeheartedly agree with others. But you seem to be distilling the whole argument into a black /white, yes/no debate that you have the answer to. Any nuances seem to be lost in a pretty hard and fast 'I have the right answer, 2 +2 is 4 and I will argue that to the death'. 

Depends on the country. Australia is dealing with it with precision at the moment. Lockdowns, etc, are used for larger outbreaks, and usually start more localised, and ramp up from there depending on outcome. South Australia, where I am currently, has had one outbreak in the last 160 days, and resulted in about 1100 people going into quarantine for 14 days. There have been no new local cases since. 

You seem to be taking a weird position on this though. I'm not saying that there are black and white answers to how things should be done, my points are a lot more specific than that, and are based on points that are entirely provable with current data. These are, notably:

 - Countries have succeeded in having strong lockdowns, and better economic returns, through pushing the numbers to zero. 

 - Countries with less restrictive lockdowns are not performing better economically.

 - Preventative and elective medicine can only be helped by having the hospital space free, which cannot be done by just declaring things open. 

If you feel I am in error on any of these points, I am happy to discuss further. Simply saying "you're being too black and white" isn't an argument though, and trying to distill the argument to that kind of attack only suggests you don't have answers to any of the points raised. 

[Uptherams]

37 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Can you please stop saying you have proven people wrong. You havent.

We are in the middle of the pandemic and nobody knows the outcomes.

They've literally proven no one wrong. I stopped engaging because their style of 'debate' is pergatory. 

[Albert]

21 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

They've literally proven no one wrong. I stopped engaging because their style of 'debate' is pergatory. 

I love this take from some people these days. 

The point is shown to be wrong, so they just continue to say the original point, ignoring that issue. When it's pointed out that they're doing this, they just say "well, I stopped engaging". What you're admitting is you know you haven't a leg to stand on, so you're legging it from the discussion. 

I mean, I'll take it, given the weak points you insisted on continuing with, I'm not surprised that you've run. 

[Uptherams]

Just now, Albert said:

I love this take from some people these days. 

The point is shown to be wrong, so they just continue to say the original point, ignoring that issue. When it's pointed out that they're doing this, they just say "well, I stopped engaging". What you're admitting is you know you haven't a leg to stand on, so you're legging it from the discussion. 

I mean, I'll take it, given the weak points you insisted on continuing with, I'm not surprised that you've run. 

 We've all come across your style of debate before Albert. Especially on this forum. Less style more reflection of personality disorder. Endlessly quoting every aspect of a person's submission. Constantly focussing on insignificant parts of the point a person makes. 

I haven't run. There's merely no point engaging. A severe lack of ability to distinguish the difference between a person's opinion and them posting statistics for example. 

I wonder what the excuses in a week's time will be regarding low infection rate, deaths, etc. 

[Uptherams]

I'll stick to posting charts, statistics and graphs from now on I reckon. ?

[Uptherams]