Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Agreed.

I've called them out as useless since day one on this.

Interesting to see how people who have used their advice on mask wearing will react to this though.

World Health Organisation? Who? Exactly!

I've ignored them since Day 1, preferring to listen to experts like @smiths_tavrn and @G STAR RAM who have been  right all along. 

It was very selfish to leave this forum forever @G STAR RAM as we had all come to rely on your expertise 

Incredibly, you've returned to educate us further. What do you think we should do? Herd Immunity sounds like a nice simple thing that we can all have valid opinions on. Why do people think that the so-called experts know more about it than us? I think we've all had enough of experts. We can probably all find a chart that proves our carefully considered opinions.

 

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

The World Health Organization disagree with you.

You know dr David Nabarro of the WHO has stated that his comments have been taken completely out of context with regards to lockdowns.

 Right after he explained the negative effect of lockdowns he goes on to explain when lockdowns should be used. He has also spoken further about the impact of lockdowns since.

Edited by jimmyp
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

World Health Organisation? Who? Exactly!

I've ignored them since Day 1, preferring to listen to experts like @smiths_tavrn and @G STAR RAM who have been  right all along. 

It was very selfish to leave this forum forever @G STAR RAM as we had all come to rely on your expertise 

Incredibly, you've returned to educate us further. What do you think we should do? Herd Immunity sounds like a nice simple thing that we can all have valid opinions on. Why do people think that the so-called experts know more about it than us? I think we've all had enough of experts. We can probably all find a chart that proves our carefully considered opinions.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

You know dr David Nabarro of the WHO has stated that his comments have been taken completely out of context with regards to lockdowns.

 Right after he explained the negative effect of lockdowns he goes on to explain when lockdowns should be used. He has also spoken further about the impact of lockdowns since.

He said short sharp lockdowns are ok but should only be used to provide some respite, I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Norman
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.