Coronavirus

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

By all means offer it as an example, but we either agree that all countries are very different or we don't

Sweden is also worlds apart from the UK in terms of size, population density and culture

Examples are interesting, and contain useful ideas - but they are what they are.

The idea that the UK should follow the model that Sweden adopted is as invalid as the idea that it should follow the model that Vietnam did

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We should be looking at ALL the countries that have done better than us and be cherrypicking the bits that could work here

 

 

 

Sweden has done better than the UK, but it's also done pretty poorly compared to its neighbours, including economically. 

[maxjam]

10 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

By all means offer it as an example, but we either agree that all countries are very different or we don't

I think that all countries are different and used Sweden as an example of one of those with a different approach.

 

12 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

The idea that the UK should follow the model that Sweden adopted is as invalid as the idea that it should follow the model that Vietnam did

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We should be looking at ALL the countries that have done better than us and be cherrypicking the bits that could work here

Vietnams approach was hard lockdown, Swedens more of a light-touch.  I very much agree that we should be cherry-picking the best bits, just not sure how Vietnams authoritarian state harsh lockdown can offer us anything different than we tried with our initial approach.  As a broad example, adopting more of a Swedish approach, shielding the vulnerable whilst keeping the economy moving will be imo better in the long run.

 

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

Sweden has done better than the UK, but it's also done pretty poorly compared to its neighbours, including economically. 

In the short term yes.  It will take several years to discover whether they chose the right path in the long term.

[ariotofmyown]

44 minutes ago, Norman said:

So your ignorance is proven right by luck. 

Not good enough, mate. Not good enough. 

Mind you, you could replace the word 'flu' with 'Covid' in that segment. 

Or perhaps my ignorance is due to there been no external public information about getting the flu vaccine and I'm not even been told to get it anyway when I look into it myself! I always thought that me using a vaccine would take it away from someone who really needs it!

Oh hold on, look what the government website says. Perhaps this us why they are not promoting the flu vaccine to the likes of me...

"Even if you are in one of the listed groups, you may be asked to wait to have your flu vaccine

Overall, there is enough flu vaccine for everyone who is eligible to get vaccinated before the flu season starts, which is usually in December. Flu vaccine is delivered to GP practices, pharmacies and other services in batches in the run-up to and over flu season. This year, early demand for flu vaccine has been higher than usual."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flu-vaccination-why-you-are-being-asked-to-wait/flu-vaccine-supplies-and-why-you-need-to-wait-for-your-vaccine

I can't believe you have endangered vulnerable people by taking their vaccine!

[Uptherams]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

They would, that's what herd immunity is. Letting people choose risks not reaching a threshold high enough to reduce the reproduction number enough to force the numbers in a reasonable time, or worse, not even get it below 1. As a matter of public health, a mandated vaccine for a pandemic is well justified. 

No they wouldn't and no it isn't. ?‍♀️?‍♀️

[Albert]

12 minutes ago, maxjam said:

In the short term yes.  It will take several years to discover whether they chose the right path in the long term.

I get this is the go to line with their strategy, but will it really? If the aim of avoiding lockdowns, and having their kind of restrictions, is to reduce economic harm, etc, then surely the benefits would be visible on that front already. Equally, if a vaccine does come, then any progress towards herd immunity (which the UK is likely further along with anyhow), if it can be achieved through this means, is moot. 

It'll all come out in the wash, but the key metrics that people argue for it really just aren't there yet. 

6 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

No they wouldn't and no it isn't. ?‍♀️?‍♀️

Breathtaking retort, bravo. 

[maxjam]

30 minutes ago, Albert said:

I get this is the go to line with their strategy, but will it really? If the aim of avoiding lockdowns, and having their kind of restrictions, is to reduce economic harm, etc, then surely the benefits would be visible on that front already. Equally, if a vaccine does come, then any progress towards herd immunity (which the UK is likely further along with anyhow), if it can be achieved through this means, is moot.

We already know that we've added billions to the UK debt.

We already know that 1m mammograms have been cancelled.

We already know that cancer referrals etc are down around 75%.

Whilst these things may not be visible now, we know that we are just storing them up for a later date.

You may not like the ambiguousness of it, but we will only know if the benefits of one outweigh the costs of another in the fullness of time.

[Stagtime]

13 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Cases are rising, the chain hasn’t been broken which lockdown is supposed to do  = lockdowns don’t work (this is repeated globally) 

Qld population 5.16 million. New Covid cases 0. Total deaths 6. Lockdowns work.

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, Stagtime said:

Qld population 5.16 million. New Covid cases 0. Total deaths 6. Lockdowns work.

Apart from in the North of England. And Europe. And India. No offense, but the constant references to New Zealand and Australia are so tedious. 

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, Stagtime said:

Qld population 5.16 million. New Covid cases 0. Total deaths 6. Lockdowns work.

That’s one example, here in the UK we have been locking down/restricting certain areas, the cases have gone up so we are pissing in the wind and killing our social and economical future. It doesn’t work for us I’m afraid, glad it has for you. 

[Stagtime]

Just now, Andicis said:

Apart from in the North of England. And Europe. And India. No offense, but the constant references to New Zealand and Australia are so tedious. 

Mate, just stating a fact. It can work and it has worked.

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Stagtime said:

Mate, just stating a fact. It can work and it has worked.

In another country. With a different situation. Like you're stating a fact, I'm also stating a fact. It hasn't worked, and it'll continue to not work. 

[Stagtime]

4 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

That’s one example, here in the UK we have been locking down/restricting certain areas, the cases have gone up so we are pissing in the wind and killing our social and economical future. It doesn’t work for us I’m afraid, glad it has for you. 

In hindsight, we were lucky that we shut down hard at the start and are now reaping the rewards. Life is as normal as it can be here but I do despair what is happening in other places. Here’s hoping your scientists are better than your pollies.

[ariotofmyown]

18 minutes ago, Stagtime said:

Qld population 5.16 million. New Covid cases 0. Total deaths 6. Lockdowns work.

Yeah but we are "freedom loving", we just can't help ourselves unfortunately. That's how we single-handedly won the war. Not following the rules and doing whatever we wanted. It's what makes us superior to all other countries.

[Stagtime]

5 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Yeah but we are "freedom loving", we just can't help ourselves unfortunately. That's how we single-handedly won the war. Not following the rules and doing whatever we wanted. It's what makes us superior to all other countries.

Mate, luv your country so I don’t know whether to laugh or cry with that statement. We were supposed to move over there yesterday for a few years so really hoping your mob can get on top of things.

[Albert]

18 minutes ago, maxjam said:

We already know that we've added billions to the UK debt.

We already know that 1m mammograms have been cancelled.

We already know that cancer referrals etc are down around 75%.

Whilst these things may not be visible now, we know that we are just storing them up for a later date.

You may not like the ambiguousness of it, but we will only know if the benefits of one outweigh the costs of another in the fullness of time.

We already know the UK has handled this poorly, as discussed. 

We already know that the disease overloading hospitals would have the same impacts on mammograms, cancer referrals, etc. 

We already know that the disease being rampant in the community would lead to vulnerable people needing to hide away anyhow, making them less likely to seek treatment. 

We already know there are countries where all the points you've noted have shown improvement since controlling the virus. Other models dealing with the situation have not shown definitive improvements in any of these. Sweden is seeing the same drop off in cancer referrals, the same economic harm, etc. 

So really, if this is your line of reasoning, you must surely reject the Swedish model, and look more at what countries that are getting over these issues are doing. 

15 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

That’s one example, here in the UK we have been locking down/restricting certain areas, the cases have gone up so we are pissing in the wind and killing our social and economical future. It doesn’t work for us I’m afraid, glad it has for you. 

You seem to confuse the UK's government's repeated missteps with it being something that can work. 

There is a huge variance in the countries that have achieved control over infections. Taiwan, New Zealand, Vietnam, Singapore, China, Australia, Korea, etc. They all did it in their own way, but lockdowns played a big role. Labelling the UK as some unicorn in all this is baffling.

What is killing the UK's social and economic future is throwing your hands in the air and conceding defeat, labelling the UK as somehow worse than all these other countries, labelling the nation as powerless. The disease will ruin the economy, ruin society, if left to burn with no coherent plan. Even the fringe elements pushing ideas like the Great Barrington Declaration aren't advocating for that. 

[Wolfie20]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

We already know the UK has handled this poorly, as discussed. 

We already know that the disease overloading hospitals would have the same impacts on mammograms, cancer referrals, etc. 

We already know that the disease being rampant in the community would lead to vulnerable people needing to hide away anyhow, making them less likely to seek treatment. 

We already know there are countries where all the points you've noted have shown improvement since controlling the virus. Other models dealing with the situation have not shown definitive improvements in any of these. Sweden is seeing the same drop off in cancer referrals, the same economic harm, etc. 

So really, if this is your line of reasoning, you must surely reject the Swedish model, and look more at what countries that are getting over these issues are doing. 

You seem to confuse the UK's government's repeated missteps with it being something that can work. 

There is a huge variance in the countries that have achieved control over infections. Taiwan, New Zealand, Vietnam, Singapore, China, Australia, Korea, etc. They all did it in their own way, but lockdowns played a big role. Labelling the UK as some unicorn in all this is baffling.

What is killing the UK's social and economic future is throwing your hands in the air and conceding defeat, labelling the UK as somehow worse than all these other countries, labelling the nation as powerless. The disease will ruin the economy, ruin society, if left to burn with no coherent plan. Even the fringe elements pushing ideas like the Great Barrington Declaration aren't advocating for that. 

Best post in weeks.

3..2..1..

[maxjam]

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

So really, if this is your line of reasoning, you must surely reject the Swedish model, and look more at what countries that are getting over these issues are doing.

Nope, although I am not entirely disagreeing with everything you said. 

Without continuing to go around and around in circles the evidence in the UK has shown us for whatever reason that the lockdown didn't work.  I'm not saying that we lift the Swedish model and drop it into the UK and everything will be perfect, I am saying that the Swedish approach is more of one of learning to live with the virus and not hide from it - something that we should adopt here.

Sweden took their hit at the beginning and despite rising cases again estimates suggest that they won't see massive secondary spikes as we're seeing in the UK, France, Italy etc.  Their health service won't buckle under the pressure and the economy won't be hit as hard. 

The UK on the other hand, with its current approach will lurch from lockdown to lockdown, devastating the economy and storing up future additional deaths and misery etc until we achieve herd immunity anyway.

[Gone]

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

We already know the UK has handled this poorly, as discussed. 

We already know that the disease overloading hospitals would have the same impacts on mammograms, cancer referrals, etc. 

We already know that the disease being rampant in the community would lead to vulnerable people needing to hide away anyhow, making them less likely to seek treatment. 

We already know there are countries where all the points you've noted have shown improvement since controlling the virus. Other models dealing with the situation have not shown definitive improvements in any of these. Sweden is seeing the same drop off in cancer referrals, the same economic harm, etc. 

So really, if this is your line of reasoning, you must surely reject the Swedish model, and look more at what countries that are getting over these issues are doing. 

You seem to confuse the UK's government's repeated missteps with it being something that can work. 

There is a huge variance in the countries that have achieved control over infections. Taiwan, New Zealand, Vietnam, Singapore, China, Australia, Korea, etc. They all did it in their own way, but lockdowns played a big role. Labelling the UK as some unicorn in all this is baffling.

What is killing the UK's social and economic future is throwing your hands in the air and conceding defeat, labelling the UK as somehow worse than all these other countries, labelling the nation as powerless. The disease will ruin the economy, ruin society, if left to burn with no coherent plan. Even the fringe elements pushing ideas like the Great Barrington Declaration aren't advocating for that. 

We’ll agree to disagree and you seem disconnected with reality in the UK at present. Adapting a different model has been advocated by around 4000 Scientists today, I guess they are not as smart as you. I’ll pick you up on one point, the disease will not kill the economy or the social fabric of the Country (sports, the arts, social clubs etc etc) what we are doing continuing enforcing restrictions will. Also do some research on Sweden, the prediction for their economy in Q4 and 2021 is set outstrip 2019 and also other major Countries in Europe (I deal with then on a daily basis so have some knowledge of this). 

Im going to leave it there with you as to be honest your posts bore the tits of me. Take care, stay safe and enjoy the wonderful Country which you reside, I for one am jealous and wouldn’t be spending my time on a Football forum debating with us clowns on Covid, I’d most definitely be enjoying my life outside doing stuff.  Texas X 

[TomBustler1884]

Had my flu jab yesterday. Had it for the first time last year and, for the first time in years didn't get a seasonal cold at all. £12 seems a fair price for being cold and flu free, especially around my son and older members of my family.

If a vaccines available, I will have it. It will have passed all necessary checks. It will protect me. It will protect others around me. It will help everything get back to a semblance of normality.

No brainer for me.

[i-Ram]

6 minutes ago, TomBustler1884 said:

Had my flu jab yesterday. Had it for the first time last year and, for the first time in years didn't get a seasonal cold at all. £12 seems a fair price for being cold and flu free, especially around my son and older members of my family.

If a vaccines available, I will have it. It will have passed all necessary checks. It will protect me. It will protect others around me. It will help everything get back to a semblance of normality.

No brainer for me.

Taking vaccines is a no brainer. Nice strapline for parties opposite sides of the debate.