Jump to content

Coronavirus


1of4
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

I may have mis-heard it Gboro?

I know and I understand - but I'm sure if I posted something inaccurate I'd get pounded on by the usual suspects.

Honestly, Albert is the only poster on this thread who has used data and logic to suggest anything at all based in reality. The opponents to his posts have used generalisations and abstract ideas to counter them, but Albert has consistently and stoically stuck to the science and to demonstrable facts to paint our current position in a very poor light. We could have done so much better - yet we still get people defending the government, or people trying to use the "well xyz would have handled it worse". Other governments have done so much more than we have, and all the mitigating circumstances people throw up have been countered by examples in other countries who had the same problems but handled it better. The usual suspects are desperate for the argument to stop and keep saying they're done with responding (but keep responding anyway) because they can't represent any opposing data better than what is already presented.

Reality is we think we're an exceptional country and as such we should perform better than the norm. But we have performed poorly, and could have done so, so much better. We are heading into wave 2 having no progress made than we had back in March, I would say. Countries who have been successful used their first wave measures, we didn't. There's little stomach to go through it again, even if it is presented as a way to beat the virus long term - so optimism that the vulnerable can be shielded and long covid isn't really a big worry for most regular people is their fallback. It does seem vastly optimistic to hope it all just works out OK though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Reality is we think we're an exceptional country and as such we should perform better than the norm.

 

13 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

used generalisations and abstract ideas to counter them

😂🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️ look who's generalising now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I know and I understand - but I'm sure if I posted something inaccurate I'd get pounded on by the usual suspects.

Honestly, Albert is the only poster on this thread who has used data and logic to suggest anything at all based in reality. The opponents to his posts have used generalisations and abstract ideas to counter them, but Albert has consistently and stoically stuck to the science and to demonstrable facts to paint our current position in a very poor light.

I guess as a usual suspect I'll reply...

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with everything Albert says my original argument, before it was bent and twisted out of shape with semantics etc, was whilst we can accurately determine the numbers of deaths now there is a discussion to be had about our continued approach to dealing with covid.

My argument maybe more abstract but imo at least its a no brainer that if cancer referrals are down 75% we're storing up additional, and in a lot of cases, preventable deaths.  Same with the 1m mammograms that have been cancelled and other illnesses that have been delayed or cancelled.  Mental health issues will inevitably arise, especially over the darker winter months if we're forced to isolate more than we would do normally.  If you add to that the massive amounts of debt we've taken on there are increasingly significant arguments against lockdowns.

But I'm going over old ground so I'll leave it there.

 

22 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Reality is we think we're an exceptional country and as such we should perform better than the norm. But we have performed poorly, and could have done so, so much better. We are heading into wave 2 having no progress made than we had back in March, I would say. Countries who have been successful used their first wave measures, we didn't. There's little stomach to go through it again, even if it is presented as a way to beat the virus long term - so optimism that the vulnerable can be shielded and long covid isn't really a big worry for most regular people is their fallback. It does seem vastly optimistic to hope it all just works out OK though.

I think whilst we all agree the first lockdown was essential and the Government did pretty well - followed the science and paid us all to stay home etc.  In recent months the message has become more bizarre and erratic.  I dunno about a circuit breaker for the public, we need the Government to take a break and reassess where things are going wrong.  Its coming across as unworkable and haphazard.

As an additional I read a few interesting articles earlier about 'pandemic fatigue'.  One from the WHO, another from Sweden and a couple of others.  I think this is very much playing a part as to whats happening now, especially in some countries that have traditionally enjoyed more freedoms than other parts of the world - the populous is growing increasingly weary of lockdowns and more prone to break any rules passed down by Governments anyway.

Edited by maxjam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

I'd hazard a guess that many people who use the "XYZ would have been much worse" excuse is because they are trying to convince themselves that they put their "X" in the correct box?

No publicity or accept terms and conditions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I guess as a usual suspect I'll reply...

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with everything Albert says my original argument, before it was bent and twisted out of shape with semantics etc, was whilst we can accurately determine the numbers of deaths now there is a discussion to be had about our continued approach to dealing with covid.

My argument maybe more abstract but imo at least its a no brainer that if cancer referrals are down 75% we're storing up additional, and in a lot of cases, preventable deaths.  Same with the 1m mammograms that have been cancelled and other illnesses that have been delayed or cancelled.  Mental health issues will inevitably arise, especially over the darker winter months if we're forced to isolate more than we would do normally.  If you add to that the massive amounts of debt we've taken on there are increasingly significant arguments against lockdowns.

But I'm going over old ground so I'll leave it there.

 

I think whilst we all agree the first lockdown was essential and the Government did pretty well - followed the science and paid us all to stay home etc.  In recent months the message has become more bizarre and erratic.  I dunno about a circuit breaker for the public, we need the Government to take a break and reassess where things are going wrong.  Its coming across as unworkable and haphazard.

As an additional I read a few interesting articles earlier about 'pandemic fatigue'.  One from the WHO, another from Sweden and a couple of others.  I think this is very much playing a part as to whats happening now, especially in some countries that have traditionally enjoyed more freedoms than other parts of the world - the populous is growing increasingly weary of lockdowns and more prone to break any rules passed down by Governments anyway.

I don't think anyone doubts that by cancelling routine health visits we're storing up future trouble. Lockdown definitely affects mental health of many people, and the economic hit of lockdown has been massive.

But the alternative risks crashing the economy anyway, so the cost of not locking down is also massive.

A major health crisis would put strain on the health service and routine health visits would be affected - if not by the extra workload that the health service would have to deal with, then by the reduction in staff due to people having to isolate. I'm sure the extra exposure to the virus in the health service would have a cost in lives of health service staff too.

A health service crisis would have an effect on mental health services, which would mean many people would find themselves without the support they need for depression, anxiety and any of a range of other mental health problems.

Nobody wants a lockdown. Some people think there's a chance we could get this virus under control if we did one properly. I'm not convinced we could - I think there's an alarming number of people who either don't believe there is a virus, believe there is one but it's being purposely pushed for (for reasons I don't get at all), believe it's nothing really to worry about, or just don't agree with following more rules due to their personal liberty being affected. Reading some of the posts in here vehemently opposing any measures that might mean more control and more lockdown is clear to me that we can't really hope to give it a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK government value the cost of saving a life at about £30,000 per year saved. 

In a worst case scenario (letting Covid run freely through the population), we'd be looking at about 500,000 deaths. Someone posted a while back about the average number of years lost due to Covid was about 12. This is a total cost of £180b. Let's add a safety factor of 2 on the lost years (due to 'long Covid') and we reach £360b. 

The estimated cost of the first lockdown was estimated at about £130b. Back in August, the OBR estimated a total end cost of Covid to be £263-391b. Given the change of outlook over the past 2 months, I can only assume these figures will have grown, and the lower estimate will probably exceed the cost in loss of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The UK government value the cost of saving a life at about £30,000 per year saved. 

In a worst case scenario (letting Covid run freely through the population), we'd be looking at about 500,000 deaths. Someone posted a while back about the average number of years lost due to Covid was about 12. This is a total cost of £180b. Let's add a safety factor of 2 on the lost years (due to 'long Covid') and we reach £360b. 

The estimated cost of the first lockdown was estimated at about £130b. Back in August, the OBR estimated a total end cost of Covid to be £263-391b. Given the change of outlook over the past 2 months, I can only assume these figures will have grown, and the lower estimate will probably exceed the cost in loss of life. 

Obviously I'd estimate my own life to be worth a tad more than £30K, Boris's I'd say would come in at no more than £5.99, maybe a tenner if you chuck in Priti Patel, Hancock and Raab?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The UK government value the cost of saving a life at about £30,000 per year saved. 

In a worst case scenario (letting Covid run freely through the population), we'd be looking at about 500,000 deaths. Someone posted a while back about the average number of years lost due to Covid was about 12. This is a total cost of £180b. Let's add a safety factor of 2 on the lost years (due to 'long Covid') and we reach £360b. 

The estimated cost of the first lockdown was estimated at about £130b. Back in August, the OBR estimated a total end cost of Covid to be £263-391b. Given the change of outlook over the past 2 months, I can only assume these figures will have grown, and the lower estimate will probably exceed the cost in loss of life. 

I'm pretty sure the 12 years of lost life was debunked.

Furthermore most people dying of covid are 75yo+ with 2 or more underlying conditions.  For the purposes of this discussion, if we're valuing it purely on economic terms we'd probably be saving money by letting nature take its course.

Why is there no Grim Reaper emoji 😛 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm pretty sure the 12 years of lost life was debunked.

Furthermore most people dying of covid are 75yo+ with 2 or more underlying conditions.  For the purposes of this discussion, if we're valuing it purely on economic terms we'd probably be saving money by letting nature take its course.

Why is there no Grim Reaper emoji 😛 ?

I thought it was but just ran with it as the actual figure isn't going to be any higher than that.

Having checked the figures, the average age of death in recent years was around the 75 years mark. Guess what the average age of someone dying with Covid is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I thought it was but just ran with it as the actual figure isn't going to be any higher than that.

Having checked the figures, the average age of death in recent years was around the 75 years mark. Guess what the average age of someone dying with Covid is?

Higher!

 

Bruce-Forsyth-host-of-ITV-007.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm pretty sure the 12 years of lost life was debunked.

Furthermore most people dying of covid are 75yo+ with 2 or more underlying conditions.  For the purposes of this discussion, if we're valuing it purely on economic terms we'd probably be saving money by letting nature take its course.

Why is there no Grim Reaper emoji 😛 ?

yes it was proven to be utter BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richinspain said:

If you've read every single post I'd say that you've got more time on your hands than anybody!

I'd like to say I paid attention to every single post but with multi-quoted posts, and the over-use of the word "misguided", I quickly scanned a majority of the posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.