Jump to content

Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

Asymptomatic cases can be inferred from a number of factors, including symptomatic cases, death rate, etc. 

It's not clear which numbers you want a source on here, however. 

Is this really the only kind of response you can muster? 

Also, could you please learn to quote properly. It's not hard. Hit the quote button, and do a line break between the paragraphs. This splits the quote box so you can respond in turn. Right now, your posts look like you're struggling to handle a computer. 

I no longer wish to respond to you. I told you that this morning.

To be honest I find it hard to type when you are boring me just repeating the same thing over and over and over again.

I've waved the white flag. I'm happy to say everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is part of the problem for the UK that we are a fairly small country with all counties, etc close together therefore trying to control it via local restrictions is proving tough. You can't control movement between them. 

Compare this to Australia (and I admit I know very little so this is a bit of guess work) where you have states and borders between those states. Can they be controlled and therefore movement can be managed. Does that make it easier for them to enforce local restrictions?

Could it be that the same measures don't work for different countries which is why we see such a variance in how everyone is dealing with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cardinal said:

The lockdown one is an interesting one. 

From an NHS perspective my sister is a bit concerned by the prospect because it means her kids can't go to school which means she would have to stay at home to look after them which means she can't go to work. 

So effectively, a lockdown is actually causing the NHS to be stretched by taking doctors away from their work. 

Is that a good idea? 

I thought during lockdown, kids whose parents are key workers could be in school everyday. Surely the same would happen if there was another lockdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

I thought during lockdown, kids whose parents are key workers could be in school everyday. Surely the same would happen if there was another lockdown.

It would be madness to have another lockdown and repeat exactly what we did with the first one, that one lasted the best part of 4 months and now here we are right back at square one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

I thought during lockdown, kids whose parents are key workers could be in school everyday. Surely the same would happen if there was another lockdown.

In general..yes.. Some schools didn't have enough places, some kids just didn't want to go when no one else was in. Whether they would do the same again, I'm not sure...presumably they would have to. But its not easy as there is no pre/after school club, no grandparents giving lifts, other parents sharing drop offs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

It would be madness to have another lockdown and repeat exactly what we did with the first one, that one lasted the best part of 4 months and now here we are right back at square one.

Locking down is just kicking the can down the road and praying for a vaccine that has no guarantee of arriving. Finding a way to live with this virus is the correct way to go, in my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Clearly answered, I credit you for that. 

At the moment I really can't see us ever getting to a stage in the UK where track and trace is used to such draconian levels.

Currently an 'infected' child gets sent home from school and the whole year can be sent home for 2 weeks. Large numbers of parents think its a nonsense. Those who are more Covid fearful go the opposite way and fear it is out of control and refuse to send their children in anyway..when in reality you had 1 child with little or no symptoms. 

If this keeps happening (children repeatedly being sent home for 2 weeks) I think parents will become less supportive of track and trace not more. 

They're not really 'draconian', and the up side to the measures is that we are very much open, while being Covid-free. 

19 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Is part of the problem for the UK that we are a fairly small country with all counties, etc close together therefore trying to control it via local restrictions is proving tough. You can't control movement between them. 

Compare this to Australia (and I admit I know very little so this is a bit of guess work) where you have states and borders between those states. Can they be controlled and therefore movement can be managed. Does that make it easier for them to enforce local restrictions?

Could it be that the same measures don't work for different countries which is why we see such a variance in how everyone is dealing with it. 

Different countries use different measures, but no, the issue isn't the UK's density. Far denser countries, such as Korea, Taiwan, etc are all handling it just as well, if not better, than Australia, New Zealand, etc. 

In terms of internal borders in Australia, travel has been restricted on a city level, despite us having no clearly defined boundaries for such. This, notably, included in Victoria, where Melbourne was largely isolated from the rest of the state. The lockdown also included people being limited to within a certain distance of their homes. There's no reason that the UK couldn't institute a similar policy. 

The big issue is the mixed messaging, particularly from the government. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Locking down is just kicking the can down the road and praying for a vaccine that has no guarantee of arriving. Finding a way to live with this virus is the correct way to go, in my opinion. 

The issue is that the 'way to live with the virus' comes in two flavours:

1. Control the virus, like New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, etc. 

2. Slow the spread, and accept 400k+ deaths, and potentially millions of people with life long organ damage, as well as a wrecked economy. 

The former will, unfortunately, almost certainly require lockdowns to achieve, while the latter will need them anyhow as the case numbers keep ramping up, putting too much pressure on the hospitals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Albert said:

The issue is that the 'way to live with the virus' comes in two flavours:

1. Control the virus, like New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, etc. 

2. Slow the spread, and accept 400k+ deaths, and potentially millions of people with life long organ damage, as well as a wrecked economy. 

The former will, unfortunately, almost certainly require lockdowns to achieve, while the latter will need them anyhow as the case numbers keep ramping up, putting too much pressure on the hospitals. 

The UK wouldn't get 400k deaths even if it just left the virus to it, not that the two options you reckon are the only choices actually are. What was the UK doing in July? Living with the virus. You can socially distance, wear masks, and not take chances where you can help it and actually get on with life. Providing a black and white choice for this answer lacks any kind of nuance and is a bit ridiculous, in honesty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Albert said:

The issue is that the 'way to live with the virus' comes in two flavours:

1. Control the virus, like New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, etc. 

2. Slow the spread, and accept 400k+ deaths, and potentially millions of people with life long organ damage, as well as a wrecked economy. 

The former will, unfortunately, almost certainly require lockdowns to achieve, while the latter will need them anyhow as the case numbers keep ramping up, putting too much pressure on the hospitals. 

Absolute horse poo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andicis said:

The UK wouldn't get 400k deaths even if it just left the virus to it, not that the two options you reckon are the only choices actually are. What was the UK doing in July? Living with the virus. You can socially distance, wear masks, and not take chances where you can help it and actually get on with life. Providing a black and white choice for this answer lacks any kind of nuance and is a bit ridiculous, in honesty. 

On what basis do you challenge 400k deaths? 

The UK was living with the virus earlier, but in a manner that was unsustainable, and has seen this current situation occur. Trying the same with have the same result. The cost of getting to that position is too waste as it was. 

They're not 'black and white' choices either, they're the two realities that have been seen. Whether a slow or long burn, in the 'no vaccine' case, eventually 400k will die in the UK. The greater nuance is in how long you're spreading that out across. We know that doing so harms the economy though, we know that it does cause deaths, and we already know that people get long term impacts from the disease, the only question is how large that number will end up being. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Albert said:

On what basis do you challenge 400k deaths? 

The UK was living with the virus earlier, but in a manner that was unsustainable, and has seen this current situation occur. Trying the same with have the same result. The cost of getting to that position is too waste as it was. 

They're not 'black and white' choices either, they're the two realities that have been seen. Whether a slow or long burn, in the 'no vaccine' case, eventually 400k will die in the UK. The greater nuance is in how long you're spreading that out across. We know that doing so harms the economy though, we know that it does cause deaths, and we already know that people get long term impacts from the disease, the only question is how large that number will end up being. 

Because you've plucked that number from your derriere, to put it politely. There is no basis for what you're saying. And you'll defend it by saying you didn't say a time frame etc, but when you use such sensational numbers, you really should actually have some reasoning rather than that you just made it up. 

It wasn't sustainable due to Universities going back, previously it was never too bad. Controlling it isn't sustainable. Letting it rip isn't sustainable. There is no one correct answer, however you want to pretend that's not the case.

Those are not the two realities. Are you even aware of anything going on in Europe? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Because you've plucked that number from your derriere, to put it politely. There is no basis for what you're saying. And you'll defend it by saying you didn't say a time frame etc, but when you use such sensational numbers, you really should actually have some reasoning rather than that you just made it up. 

It's actually from the report infection fatality ratio of around, which has estimates ranging from 0.5%-1.0%, and the population of the UK, as well as the herd immunity estimate. That's potentially a low estimate, as there is still some uncertainty in that figure for the infection fatality ratio, of course, and we are yet to know how long an immunity people get. The concern right now is that it won't last long enough for herd immunity, hence the disease would become endemic, making the whole population vulnerable. 

 Anyhow, we can look at the full range if you wish, let's use the UK's population of 66.65 million, and the range of 0.5-1.0%. This gives 333k - 667k. Now, if herd immunity is possible, this could only require 70-85% of the population getting the disease, so this could then give us figures of 230k -  570k. The 400k figure falls in the middle of this range, which, as noted above, takes the assumption that herd immunity is possible through people getting infected. 

So to summarise, no, you had no basis to challenge the number, and were just saying "NO IT'S NOT" like a small child would. 

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It wasn't sustainable due to Universities going back, previously it was never too bad. Controlling it isn't sustainable. Letting it rip isn't sustainable. There is no one correct answer, however you want to pretend that's not the case.

Those are not the two realities. Are you even aware of anything going on in Europe? 

You say controlling it is not sustainable, yet there are many countries that are sustainably controlling the virus. 

I am very aware of what is going on in Europe, and it is a sad state of affairs that the region that once was the World leader in some many ways has dropped the ball so badly on this pandemic. Let us hope for better news in the future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Because you've plucked that number from your derriere, to put it politely. There is no basis for what you're saying. And you'll defend it by saying you didn't say a time frame etc, but when you use such sensational numbers, you really should actually have some reasoning rather than that you just made it up. 

It wasn't sustainable due to Universities going back, previously it was never too bad. Controlling it isn't sustainable. Letting it rip isn't sustainable. There is no one correct answer, however you want to pretend that's not the case.

Those are not the two realities. Are you even aware of anything going on in Europe? 

 

Unfortunately his figures really aren’t just plucked out of the air. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Albert said:

It's actually from the report infection fatality ratio of around, which has estimates ranging from 0.5%-1.0%, and the population of the UK, as well as the herd immunity estimate. That's potentially a low estimate, as there is still some uncertainty in that figure for the infection fatality ratio, of course, and we are yet to know how long an immunity people get. The concern right now is that it won't last long enough for herd immunity, hence the disease would become endemic, making the whole population vulnerable. 

 Anyhow, we can look at the full range if you wish, let's use the UK's population of 66.65 million, and the range of 0.5-1.0%. This gives 333k - 667k. Now, if herd immunity is possible, this could only require 70-85% of the population getting the disease, so this could then give us figures of 230k -  570k. The 400k figure falls in the middle of this range, which, as noted above, takes the assumption that herd immunity is possible through people getting infected. 

So to summarise, no, you had no basis to challenge the number, and were just saying "NO IT'S NOT" like a small child would. 

Your numbers aren't exactly scientific are they? There is a huge difference between 0.5% and 1%, and using a grouped death rate as opposed to doing it by mortality rate across each age cohort means there is little validity in your number, hence why there is absolutely basis for me to challenge your number. 

Plus I've seen scientists suggest people can have t cell immunity if they've had similar viruses in the past. 

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

You say controlling it is not sustainable, yet there are many countries that are sustainably controlling the virus. 

I am very aware of what is going on in Europe, and it is a sad state of affairs that the region that once was the World leader in some many ways has dropped the ball so badly on this pandemic. Let us hope for better news in the future. 

Not discussing this again. Already gone over this. It was already in Europe before European leaders even knew of the virus, it's quite hard to control that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cardinal said:

Is part of the problem for the UK that we are a fairly small country with all counties, etc close together therefore trying to control it via local restrictions is proving tough. You can't control movement between them. 

Compare this to Australia (and I admit I know very little so this is a bit of guess work) where you have states and borders between those states. Can they be controlled and therefore movement can be managed. Does that make it easier for them to enforce local restrictions?

Could it be that the same measures don't work for different countries which is why we see such a variance in how everyone is dealing with it. 

With me being located in central England, I can travel pretty much anywhere in the country in just 3 hours.

Someone located in central Australia would have to drive for over 24 hours non-stop to reach Perth or Sydney

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Your numbers aren't exactly scientific are they? There is a huge difference between 0.5% and 1%, and using a grouped death rate as opposed to doing it by mortality rate across each age cohort means there is little validity in your number, hence why there is absolutely basis for me to challenge your number. 

"Aren't exactly scientific"? What? They're the estimates based on what we know about the disease so far. They're literally scientific. That said, a more recent publication by the WHO suggests even more uncertainty. Similar European countries are in excess of 0.50%, (Czechia was reported at 0.59%, while Sweden was 0.71%) though the global IFR may be less. This is driven by Europe's aging population. Using the CDC's estimates, and the UK's age distribution, suggests an expected IFR of around 0.65%. 

23 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Plus I've seen scientists suggest people can have t cell immunity if they've had similar viruses in the past. 

This is how some vaccines actually work. It's possible, but not demonstrated yet. It's suggested that some populations in East Asia may be helped by this, but there's no suggestion that it could be the case in Europe. 

23 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Not discussing this again. Already gone over this. It was already in Europe before European leaders even knew of the virus, it's quite hard to control that. 

There's suggestions that the first cases might have been, but this is no different to anywhere else in the World. The fact that European countries got it under control, then let it spiral out of control, makes this point moot as well. Childishly digging your heels in and refusing to consider evidence isn't exactly a solid debating strategy, for the record. 

17 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

With me being located in central England, I can travel pretty much anywhere in the country in just 3 hours.

Someone located in central Australia would have to drive for over 24 hours non-stop to reach Perth or Sydney

Also makes borders and boundaries harder to monitor and track, yet they've still done it. 

The majority of Australia's population is fairly tightly packed as well. 

I do find it interesting how much discussion of this focuses on Australia, and not countries like Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Albert said:

"Aren't exactly scientific"? What? They're the estimates based on what we know about the disease so far. They're literally scientific. That said, a more recent publication by the WHO suggests even more uncertainty. Similar European countries are in excess of 0.50%, (Czechia was reported at 0.59%, while Sweden was 0.71%) though the global IFR may be less. This is driven by Europe's aging population. Using the CDC's estimates, and the UK's age distribution, suggests an expected IFR of around 0.65%.

How many people have already had the virus in the UK? How many people are naturally immune? 

 

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

There's suggestions that the first cases might have been, but this is no different to anywhere else in the World. The fact that European countries got it under control, then let it spiral out of control, makes this point moot as well. Childishly digging your heels in and refusing to consider evidence isn't exactly a solid debating strategy, for the record. 

The virus was already heavily prevalent in Europe before anyone was aware of it. Was the virus every so heavily prevalent in other regions without the knowledge beforehand? Here we go again with you coming in with some condescending final line as you always do. And you're calling somebody else childish. Lol mate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.