Coronavirus

[Wolfie]

56 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

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?

 

Exactly the same thoughts I was having about this.

I knew you'd agree with me on something sooner or later ??

[Ken Tram]

I like a good debate - and it's good to have a forum where things are discussed so knowledgeably - so, don't stop! But, perhaps consider a regrouping?

Because it goes on over so many pages, maybe you guys could try writing a summary of what you agree upon, and what you disagree upon?

This might enable others to contribute ideas that might help shed light on your positions.

Also, if you can pinpoint the main area of disagreement - then the debate could focus on that.

[Ken Tram]

PS. I see all of the arguments -disagreeing back and forth - but I cannot even work out who disagrees with whom! 

... let alone, understand what the disagreement is about.

[Stive Pesley]

2 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Also, if you can pinpoint the main area of disagreement

I dont even know anymore! As time goes on, i find myself agreeing with bits of what everyone is saying, but this obsession with trying to use continually moving stats as a basis to "prove stuff" one way or the other has lost my dressing room

 

[Albert]

22 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

 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. 

A yes, personal insults, classy stuff mate. 

I'm not sure how focusing on literally the core of the arguments made, then backing my position with a mix of current examples and data, is to be considered 'focussing on insignificant parts of the point'. 

As noted, you've run, you know your point has no legs, and you'd rather turn to targeting me directly, as you find it easier to do than deal with the argument. 

As to 'what the excuse will be'... mate, there's controls in place, people will be pretty happy if they've worked effectively. You're framing it as though it's some kind of error when the actual goal of these controls is achieved, truly bafflingly stuff, I'm not surprised you've turned so quickly to personal attacks.

What will your excuse be when countries that have done proper lockdowns continue to perform well economically, and continue avoid the human costs this pandemic is bringing? 

[maxjam]

According to Save the Children another negative impact of Covid will be a huge increase in child marriage, pregnancy and lost education (which also negatively impacts climate change)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/01/covid-crisis-could-force-extra-25m-girls-into-child-marriage-charity

The good news just keeps on coming ?

 

[Albert]

14 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

I like a good debate - and it's good to have a forum where things are discussed so knowledgeably - so, don't stop! But, perhaps consider a regrouping?

Because it goes on over so many pages, maybe you guys could try writing a summary of what you agree upon, and what you disagree upon?

This might enable others to contribute ideas that might help shed light on your positions.

Also, if you can pinpoint the main area of disagreement - then the debate could focus on that.

The disagreement, as discussed is basically around what value lockdowns and controls have. 

My position is that their benefits are well demonstrated, and that done well, they avoid long term human and economic costs that are associated with the pandemic. Human costs is a very broad term, but covers things like job losses, economic hardship, impact on healthcare, etc. 

My position is based on currently being in a country that went down that route, and in a state (South Australia), that has been particularly successful in that. In essence, after a whopping 4 weeks of hard lockdowns, we began to return to normal life. At this point, we've been out of lockdown for nearly half a year, being virtually at zero cases for this time period, with only one scare a bit over 50 days ago. 

Concerns were raised by others that the economic costs of lockdowns is too much, but my point is that they don't have to be. Hard, but properly done, lockdowns need not be lengthy. A number of countries have been successful in doing this, despite different cultural, social and economic backgrounds. The most notable are Australia (all Victoria), New Zealand, Vietnam and Taiwan. There are others that have been very successful, but still have a daily rate of cases, but are generally under control. At the very least, the UK's target should be this, as the economic benefits have been vast.

The counter argument has basically just been repeating 'lockdowns are too hard on the economy', and 'it's only old people who die', but the first is countered by the very existence of countries like Australia and Taiwan, while the second is just flat out fake news. Given that we already know how quickly the pandemic, when not controlled, can overwhelm health systems, and that the economic costs of businesses being forced closed is vast, the idea of 'opening up for the economy' is like burning your house down to stay warm. 

The other lingering 'debate', if it can be called that, is a certain poster just posting an example forecast repeatedly, when that forecast was never a prediction of what was to come, and it not following it is the entire point of things like the rule of 6 and other recent controls. Their point is, ironically, that there shouldn't be controls, but they're insistent on posting data that shows how effective they can be. 

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, maxjam said:

According to Save the Children another negative impact of Covid will be a huge increase in child marriage, pregnancy and lost education (which also negatively impacts climate change)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/01/covid-crisis-could-force-extra-25m-girls-into-child-marriage-charity

The good news just keeps on coming ?

 

If only more countries followed the advice and managed to get on top of the virus. If the UK had done so, the economic recovery, and dealing with these kinds of issues, could already have begun. 

[WhiteHorseRam]

25 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

I like a good debate - and it's good to have a forum where things are discussed so knowledgeably - so, don't stop! But, perhaps consider a regrouping?

Because it goes on over so many pages, maybe you guys could try writing a summary of what you agree upon, and what you disagree upon?

This might enable others to contribute ideas that might help shed light on your positions.

Also, if you can pinpoint the main area of disagreement - then the debate could focus on that.

God Bless you mate, did you ever see the Politics Thread? 

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

If only more countries followed the advice and managed to get on top of the virus. If the UK had done so, the economic recovery, and dealing with these kinds of issues, could already have begun. 

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling now. 

The vast majority of the girls the article is talking about will be in Asia.  Not all countries have the same capabilities economically to enforce a lockdown without severe consequences.  Furthermore not all countries have the same desire to end all child marriage/pregnancy etc.  I'm sorry if the latter statement is more nebulous than you are comfortable with. Geez.

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling now. 

The vast majority of the girls the article is talking about will be in Asia.  Not all countries have the same capabilities economically to enforce a lockdown without severe consequences.  Furthermore not all countries have the same desire to end all child marriage/pregnancy etc.  I'm sorry if the latter statement is more nebulous than you are comfortable with. Geez.

There are actually some very good examples of countries doing well despite economic concerns,  Vietnam is a good example of this. 

The bigger point in all this though is that global focus is taken elsewhere, and as long as countries that would usually be pushing back against this kind of thing are preoccupied with dealing with their own fires, they won't be able to do anything about it. 

[maxjam]

34 minutes ago, Albert said:

There are actually some very good examples of countries doing well despite economic concerns,  Vietnam is a good example of this. 

The bigger point in all this though is that global focus is taken elsewhere, and as long as countries that would usually be pushing back against this kind of thing are preoccupied with dealing with their own fires, they won't be able to do anything about it. 

There are some good examples of countries doing well despite economic concerns, such as Vietnam.  Vietnam is also very different to a lot of countries socially, certainly the more progressive and freer European nations for example.

My point still stands however, not all countries will be able to get through their covid pandemic without severe consequence both economically and socially which will potentially leave untold millions dead;

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/29/covid-pandemic-imf-kristalina-georgieva

 

[alexxxxx]

Seen a lot of Australians saying taht they're surprised that we aren't taking their approach. 

I just can't see how it's possible, Australia is nothing like UK geographicaly or do local authorities have the type of powers australian states have to stop movements throughout the country. 

UK has a greater population and therefore attracts more people in and out of the country. The spread is throughout the country, not in isolated places and has been since the beginning of the crisis. 

The cat is well out the bag for complete eradication unfortunately. 

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

There are some good examples of countries doing well despite economic concerns, such as Vietnam.  Vietnam is also very different to a lot of countries socially, certainly the more progressive and freer European nations for example.

My point still stands however, not all countries will be able to get through their covid pandemic without severe consequence both economically and socially which will potentially leave untold millions dead;

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/29/covid-pandemic-imf-kristalina-georgieva

 

No doubt, the long term consequences are devastating. My only point is that there is, at the very least, a way that the damage can be minimised, while saving lives on all fronts. 

That's the frustrating part in this all. Lockdowns have consequences, but the consequences for not doing so are worse. The path to zero is a ray of hope, but I do agree, it is something that not every country is organised enough to achieve. Realistically though, there are far more countries on that path than many give credit. 

I guess the real point in it all though is that it's not a trade off of 'economics v lives' as some like to suggest though, anything but going to zero will have a horrible toll in both human and economic terms. Maintaining zero takes a great deal of work in and of itself. Even in the countries that have achieved it, there is still an economic toll as well of course, as all had to deal with those initial lockdowns, as well as the impacts of being cut off from the rest of the World. 

Again, nobody is claiming, nor should claim, to have all the answers, as there are so many questions still to be answered on so many fronts. It will be a fascinating journey over the next decade or so out of this, however that comes. 

The elephant in the room is, of course, the vaccine, which is still no guarantee. I do worry about how people will respond to a lag between one being available, and when it can be distributed wide enough to have an effect. Even with a vaccine, I do fear a swansong wave from people immediately giving up on restrictions once vaccinated, despite immunity taking time to develop, and only parts of the population having it. 

The one thing worth considering is how the World responds to the differing levels of economic impact. If countries like Australia, New Zealand, etc all maintain what they've done, and are joined by others, there is a real risk of some countries being put at a serious disadvantage in the recovery. 

Oh well, let's hope that this second wave continues to slow. 

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Seen a lot of Australians saying taht they're surprised that we aren't taking their approach. 

I just can't see how it's possible, Australia is nothing like UK geographicaly or do local authorities have the type of powers australian states have to stop movements throughout the country. 

UK has a greater population and therefore attracts more people in and out of the country. The spread is throughout the country, not in isolated places and has been since the beginning of the crisis. 

The cat is well out the bag for complete eradication unfortunately. 

Missed our opportunity absolutely, and turning it round will be more work than it needed to be.

Local authorities could be given powers to control virus spreaders - if the political will existed.

People coming in and out of the country are expected to self isolate in some circumstances. This could be made more firm and more strict - if the political will existed.

I don't get this argument it's not possible because they are different. Every country is different but the principle is the same. Hard, firm lockdown early can stop the virus from spreading, meaning you can get in control quickly. Once you've gained control you can start to open back up. But we've never fully got under control - but we're opening back up, and we're seeing the virus increasing. Tinkering with the rules and partially locking down is falling between two stools in my opinion.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Seen a lot of Australians saying taht they're surprised that we aren't taking their approach. 

I just can't see how it's possible, Australia is nothing like UK geographicaly or do local authorities have the type of powers australian states have to stop movements throughout the country. 

UK has a greater population and therefore attracts more people in and out of the country. The spread is throughout the country, not in isolated places and has been since the beginning of the crisis. 

The cat is well out the bag for complete eradication unfortunately. 

Geographically the UK is more similar to somewhere like New Zealand, but the bigger point is that different countries with vastly different characteristics have managed such. Vietnam, for example, has a higher population than the UK, is more dense, and has indeed achieved that goal, even with land borders and a far weaker economy. As to others, Taiwan is an example of a country that is on the other end of the scale economically, but has achieved the same, despite ridiculous population density as well. 

For Australia, there has been a real battle to restrict movement, etc, but it was done as it was what was needed. To suggest that the UK simply couldn't is just defeatism. Equally, just because 'the cat is out of the bag' doesn't mean you can't fight it. It's not been all roses for Australia, with one state completely dropping the ball. Victoria, which is now on its way out of restrictions after a 6+ week lockdown to cope with that wave, has come from it being completely out of control. If the desire is there to fight it, it can be done, and given the economic and human benefits, surely that's worth it. 

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Seen a lot of Australians saying taht they're surprised that we aren't taking their approach. 

I just can't see how it's possible, Australia is nothing like UK geographicaly or do local authorities have the type of powers australian states have to stop movements throughout the country. 

UK has a greater population and therefore attracts more people in and out of the country. The spread is throughout the country, not in isolated places and has been since the beginning of the crisis. 

The cat is well out the bag for complete eradication unfortunately. 

The vast majority of the population of Australia live in towns and cities, much as people do in the UK, with comparable densities.

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The vast majority of the population of Australia live in towns and cities, much as people do in the UK, with comparable densities.

Different climates and way of life though;

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-appears-to-spread-less-in-warm-and-wet-climates-studies-suggest-1.5112505

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Different climates and way of life though;

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-appears-to-spread-less-in-warm-and-wet-climates-studies-suggest-1.5112505

Well, Australia and New Zealand have just made it through their winters, and Australia's best performing states are the driest ones. 

Again though, the differences, as suggested, aren't as big a factor as some would suggest. The bigger factor is the UK not doing all the key things these countries did to achieve the situation they're in. 

[Gone]

6 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Different climates and way of life though;

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-appears-to-spread-less-in-warm-and-wet-climates-studies-suggest-1.5112505

Wonder how the demographics,  average BMIs and  health levels etc compare as well (eg old, fat and unhealthy)