Coronavirus

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I assume you will apply the same standards to the Government when they change their advice on things then? No thought not.

Keep on playing the 'left the forum' card, sure you'll continue to get the laughing or clapping emojis you desire.

Dr David Nabbaro 

 “My comments were taken totally out of context. The WHO position is consistent.”

 

The WHO position really is consistent. 

Sure our government have changed advice on things, but we really haven’t followed the WHO guidelines.

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No idea, I dont live there.

That is the sort of insight we missed!

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said:

That is the sort of insight we missed!

Yawn.

I assume you can give us the full insight into the measures in Germany?

Or are you just looking at numbers and graphs to justify your point?

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Dr David Nabbaro 

 “My comments were taken totally out of context. The WHO position is consistent.”

 

The WHO position really is consistent. 

Sure our government have changed advice on things, but we really haven’t followed the WHO guidelines.

"The only time we believe a lockdown in justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources; protect your health workers who are exhausted"

Not sure how this can be taken out of context.

The WHO position has been anything but consistent throughout this whole crisis.

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Dr David Nabbaro 

 “My comments were taken totally out of context. The WHO position is consistent.”

 

The WHO position really is consistent. 

Sure our government have changed advice on things, but we really haven’t followed the WHO guidelines.

FWIW I posted this a lifetime ago (10 days on this forum ? )

He talks about how to use lockdowns and the consequences of doing so.

 

[jimmyp]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

FWIW I posted this a lifetime ago (10 days on this forum ? )

He talks about how to use lockdowns and the consequences of doing so.

 

Yes lockdowns aren’t good as the primary / sole method of virus prevention and shouldn’t be used as such. 

I do think that perhaps many people are getting their wires crossed between the difference between restrictions / lockdowns / full lockdowns / local lockdowns / medium restrictions / high restrictions etc etc. It’s hard to keep up with the lingo being used when so many are applying it to clearly different situations. 

I also agree that Britain can’t just shut its borders as debated earlier in the week. 

 

[G STAR RAM]

TEST

Just to see if @ariotofmyown @GboroRam and @86 Schmokes & a Pancake have anything better to do on a Sunday other than posting laughing emojis to all of my posts...

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

TEST

Just to see if @ariotofmyown @GboroRam and @86 Schmokes & a Pancake have anything better to do on a Sunday other than posting laughing emojis to all of my posts...

Of course you would never behave like that! 

[Norman]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Of course you would never behave like that! 

Are you accusing him of hypocrisy? 

Lol. 

[Albert]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Trust me they have been used against the UK to show how bad our response has been on a very regular basis.

Maybe over there, but Germany's response is a million miles from the gold standard. That says, it speaks to how poor the UK's response has been. 

As to your 'source', your answer is either 'no' or you're trying to quote mine, neither is a good look for you. For one, you're referencing a doctor who works for the WHO, not the WHO. The bigger point though is that they don't say that lockdowns shouldn't be done, rather, they should be avoided when better options are available. Dr Nabarro puts his own thoughts better than I ever could, so I would suggest actually reading them, rather than just quote mine blindly. 

The key takeaway is that while they're not keen on lockdowns, they are opposed to letting 'the virus run wild' as well. They advocate for a middle path, where the virus is contained and controlled, and not allowed to spiral out of control in the first place. They note that "From time to time it will be necessary briefly to restrict movement locally to enable suppression of outbreaks." They also discuss what is actually needed to get full control of the virus, and as I've noted, pointed out that lockdowns themselves are not how countries got on top of the virus, though they were part of the early response for many. They also highlight the point discussed regarding testing and tracing as a means of containing clusters; the UK is no longer in a position where that will work sadly. 

[GboroRam]

8 minutes ago, Norman said:

Are you accusing him of hypocrisy? 

Lol. 

Absolutely not! I said he would never behave like that. 

[Norman]

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

Maybe over there, but Germany's response is a million miles from the gold standard. That says, it speaks to how poor the UK's response has been. 

As to your 'source', your answer is either 'no' or you're trying to quote mine, neither is a good look for you. For one, you're referencing a doctor who works for the WHO, not the WHO. The bigger point though is that they don't say that lockdowns shouldn't be done, rather, they should be avoided when better options are available. Dr Nabarro puts his own thoughts better than I ever could, so I would suggest actually reading them, rather than just quote mine blindly. 

The key takeaway is that while they're not keen on lockdowns, they are opposed to letting 'the virus run wild' as well. They advocate for a middle path, where the virus is contained and controlled, and not allowed to spiral out of control in the first place. They note that "From time to time it will be necessary briefly to restrict movement locally to enable suppression of outbreaks." They also discuss what is actually needed to get full control of the virus, and as I've noted, pointed out that lockdowns themselves are not how countries got on top of the virus, though they were part of the early response for many. They also highlight the point discussed regarding testing and tracing as a means of containing clusters; the UK is no longer in a position where that will work sadly. 

Albert, one day someone in Oz with no symptoms will walk in to a stadium and infect hundreds, rapidly. That will turn into thousands, and most won't have symptoms. The track and trace will be largely pointless. 

It will happen. We were estimated to be at 100k a day infections at the end of March. Our poor testing regime still manged to get 5x as many positives as Australia at this point. 

The virus had gone too far here. Germany did a better job, but still couldn't manage to track and trace a few hundred cases a day when they opened up their economy. Now they are at 8k a day and have no hope of getting that down without more lockdowns.

When Australia are at 250 cases a day (and not in a strict lockdown or about to impose one) , I will listen to their response. But as most don't have symptoms, I'm going to guess you will just be as inept as the rest of us and trying to keep a lid on it without National Lockdowns.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

Maybe over there, but Germany's response is a million miles from the gold standard. That says, it speaks to how poor the UK's response has been. 

As to your 'source', your answer is either 'no' or you're trying to quote mine, neither is a good look for you. For one, you're referencing a doctor who works for the WHO, not the WHO. The bigger point though is that they don't say that lockdowns shouldn't be done, rather, they should be avoided when better options are available. Dr Nabarro puts his own thoughts better than I ever could, so I would suggest actually reading them, rather than just quote mine blindly. 

The key takeaway is that while they're not keen on lockdowns, they are opposed to letting 'the virus run wild' as well. They advocate for a middle path, where the virus is contained and controlled, and not allowed to spiral out of control in the first place. They note that "From time to time it will be necessary briefly to restrict movement locally to enable suppression of outbreaks." They also discuss what is actually needed to get full control of the virus, and as I've noted, pointed out that lockdowns themselves are not how countries got on top of the virus, though they were part of the early response for many. They also highlight the point discussed regarding testing and tracing as a means of containing clusters; the UK is no longer in a position where that will work sadly. 

You really dont read anything else that anyone ever writes so I feel as though it's a waste of time even responding.

You've clearly set your stall out that you think your, and only your, opinion is correct, which of course is fine.

Not much point in responding to me as there is no debate to be had with you.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, Norman said:

Albert, one day someone in Oz with no symptoms will walk in to a stadium and infect hundreds, rapidly. That will turn into thousands, and most won't have symptoms. The track and trace will be largely pointless. 

Maybe, that's what some have been saying for over 170 days here in South Australia. There was indeed a situation where someone who was asymptomatic went to two different schools, both with over 1000 students, but the health authorities managed to do the tracing, and ultimately with the risk involved, isolated every person who had been there for those days for 14 days. This did indeed contain that, and the state hasn't seen another community transmitted case since. 

Sports events are still running reduced capacity, with detailed records of who is going where, what and how. Maybe something might go wrong, but they're still running with systems to keep that under control. 

4 minutes ago, Norman said:

It will happen. We were estimated to be at 100k a day infections at the end of March. Our poor testing regime still manged to get 5x as many positives as Australia at this point. 

The virus had gone too far here. Germany did a better job, but still couldn't manage to track and trace a few hundred cases a day when they opened up their economy. Now they are at 8k a day and have no hope of getting that down without more lockdowns.

Yep, and that's the risk of 'opening up' too soon. The whole point with the advise discussed above is that you don't just 'open up' in that way. Restrictions remain, and testing and tracing sorts the rest. You're open, but in a Covid-normal, not a pre-Covid-normal. 

4 minutes ago, Norman said:

When Australia are at 250 cases a day (and not in a strict lockdown or about to impose one) , I will listen to their response. But as most don't have symptoms, I'm going to guess you will just be as inept as the rest of us and trying to keep a lid on it without National Lockdowns.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. There have been outbreaks in Australia, and these have been controlled. Again, there was a cluster in South Australia in two schools at once, and that was effectively controlled. NSW has seen numerous clusters, but kept things under control, though if anywhere is going to be the one to see the situation fall apart, it's NSW. 

Then there's Victoria, which did have the situation spiral out of control, and only managed to regain control through lockdowns, and harsh restrictions, though these are rolling back now. 

Again though, my point isn't that Australia's response has been perfect. Far from it, I certainly wouldn't rate it as highly as New Zealand's (which also had a fairly significant cluster a few months back, which they also managed to control). The point is, however, that gaining control, and then using testing and tracing to maintain that, is definitely possible. 

[Albert]

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

You really dont read anything else that anyone ever writes so I feel as though it's a waste of time even responding.

What reason do you have to say this, apart from wanting a cheap out?

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

You've clearly set your stall out that you think your, and only your, opinion is correct, which of course is fine.

As above. 

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not much point in responding to me as there is no debate to be had with you.

There is plenty of debate to be had, you just don't have an argument with any kind of solid basis to go with, so you're more than happy to just skulk off with any excuse you can cobble together. 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

Bit tense on here this morning... shame we can't talk about the B word so we can all agree, hold hands and be friends ?

on the C word... this morning in the ST they say Asia seem to have the right to deal with it, hard lockdowns but it would not work in Europe because we are not as good at following government advice and we don't have dictatorship. Rock and and hard place sprung to mind!

[Norman]

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

Maybe, that's what some have been saying for over 170 days here in South Australia. There was indeed a situation where someone who was asymptomatic went to two different schools, both with over 1000 students, but the health authorities managed to do the tracing, and ultimately with the risk involved, isolated every person who had been there for those days for 14 days. This did indeed contain that, and the state hasn't seen another community transmitted case since. 

Sports events are still running reduced capacity, with detailed records of who is going where, what and how. Maybe something might go wrong, but they're still running with systems to keep that under control. 

Yep, and that's the risk of 'opening up' too soon. The whole point with the advise discussed above is that you don't just 'open up' in that way. Restrictions remain, and testing and tracing sorts the rest. You're open, but in a Covid-normal, not a pre-Covid-normal. 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. There have been outbreaks in Australia, and these have been controlled. Again, there was a cluster in South Australia in two schools at once, and that was effectively controlled. NSW has seen numerous clusters, but kept things under control, though if anywhere is going to be the one to see the situation fall apart, it's NSW. 

Then there's Victoria, which did have the situation spiral out of control, and only managed to regain control through lockdowns, and harsh restrictions, though these are rolling back now. 

Again though, my point isn't that Australia's response has been perfect. Far from it, I certainly wouldn't rate it as highly as New Zealand's (which also had a fairly significant cluster a few months back, which they also managed to control). The point is, however, that gaining control, and then using testing and tracing to maintain that, is definitely possible. 

You're not sure what point I am trying to make? Honestly? 

I thought my point was clear. Your economy will open up, restrictions on travel will ease, people will become weary of the measures, your quarantine period will probably be halved as new, faster tests come in (that will cause more problems than it solves) . Sports stadiums, concert halls, bars, clubs all open. 

It will happen. You can't stop it. 

Only then will I judge what a gold standard is.

I'm not going to argue on the point that our lockdown should have been harder and longer. It's not worth it and it's been done over and over by you and @maxjam

Just to point out, you only have 17 cases currently, and have been at a similar level for ages, but you can't eliminate it. Why not? 

Now imagine a few hundred with your economy open. 

[Albert]

7 minutes ago, Norman said:

You're not sure what point I am trying to make? Honestly? 

I thought my point was clear. Your economy will open up, restrictions on travel will ease, people will become weary of the measures, your quarantine period will probably be halved as new, faster tests come in (that will cause more problems than it solves) . Sports stadiums, concert halls, bars, clubs all open. 

All that's been open for months. Much of it has been open since April-Mayish. Testing has remained at similar rates, and focus has very much remained on doing things right. That said, we've had Victoria to help everyone else keep focus. 

Not sure why you're think quarantine periods would be cut, that would be a truly bizarre move given that the purpose of 14 day quarantine is that it can take time for infections to develop. Speed of testing will not change that. 

7 minutes ago, Norman said:

It will happen. You can't stop it. 

Only then will I judge what a gold standard is.

So, what you're attempting to say is that while this response has successfully controlled the outbreaks, and do so for around half a year at this point, that it must, and will all go wrong? It could well do, but given the success of the strategies so far, and the fact that where it did all go wrong they have indeed gotten it back under control, it seems reasonable to think that a repeat of the same process would achieve the same result. 

7 minutes ago, Norman said:

I'm not going to argue on the point that our lockdown should have been harder and longer. It's not worth it and it's been done over and over by you and @maxjam

Just to point out, you only have 17 cases currently, and have been at a similar level for ages, but you can't eliminate it. Why not? 

Now imagine a few hundred with your economy open. 

Different states. Victoria was very much not under control for a long time, hence Australia's second wave, which is now under control. The rest of the cases are international arrivals in hotel quarantine, as the government are repatriating people from overseas, and have been doing so all year. 

My own perspective on the situation is large regarding South Australia, which has had one outbreak, which was rapidly controlled, as noted, around 70 days back. There were 100 days with no community transmission prior to that. The same can be said of Western Australia, the territories, Queensland and Tasmania where the virus is effectively eliminated. NSW has maintained a low number of cases, but their response has remained the most haphazard, and least focused on elimination. Again, I suspect they'll be the one where it all goes wrong next, if it does. 

Again though, Australia is far from the best, and the bigger point is that this is very much achievable, not just a fluke. It's not just Australia, and different approaches in different countries have worked. I know it's comforting to think 'it was always going to be this way', but it wasn't, and it doesn't need to be.

[ariotofmyown]

53 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Bit tense on here this morning... shame we can't talk about the B word so we can all agree, hold hands and be friends ?

on the C word... this morning in the ST they say Asia seem to have the right to deal with it, hard lockdowns but it would not work in Europe because we are not as good at following government advice and we don't have dictatorship. Rock and and hard place sprung to mind!

Yeah, those dictators that run South Korea are proper scary!

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

You really dont read anything else that anyone ever writes so I feel as though it's a waste of time even responding.

You've clearly set your stall out that you think your, and only your, opinion is correct, which of course is fine.

Not much point in responding to me as there is no debate to be had with you.

You don't live in Australia either so you have no idea about what is going on there. @Albert will probably say something like they've had only 5 deaths vs ours 50k, but you can "prove" anything with "numbers". It's Team Cummings for me all the way. Did you know he warned about the threat of pandemics on his scarily accurate blogs last year?

There is nothing that other countries can teach us about anything. And as for the so-called World Heath Organisation, I've called them out for the frauds that they are since Day 1, like when they were warning about Covid at the start of the year and that we needed to lockdown asap. Yeah right, we showed them experts!