Coronavirus

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

By your definition,as discussed ?

You've not actually discussed anything prior, so this just comes across as silly, like with all the times you've run screaming when data is actually presented. 

@G STAR RAM is arguing that the government is trying to scare people as a way of manipulating them so they can continue the lockdowns, etc. This fits the standard definition of a conspiracy theory. Let's keep it simple for you though, and just go with good ol' wikipedia definition:

Quote

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.

Of course, the event or situation is this lockdown instituted by the government. 

Here we also have 'sinister and powerful groups', which are indeed 'doing it' for political motivation, it being exaggerating circumstances in the media to scare the population into wanting to remain in lockdown. This requires multiple players of course, government officials, the media, etc. If @G STAR RAM doesn't think it's sinister to keep the country in what they keep arguing is an unnecessary perpetual lockdown, then their argument kind of dissolves. It dissolves with even the most basic inspection of cause, but you'd think they'd want it to not self-dissolve. 

It also needs to be a conspiracy, so let's just chuck in wikipedia's definition of that too:

Quote

A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it. In a political sense, conspiracy refers to a group of people united in the goal of usurping, altering or overthrowing an established political power. Depending on the circumstances, a conspiracy may also be a crime, or a civil wrong. The term generally implies wrongdoing or illegality on the part of the conspirators, as people would not need to conspire to engage in activities that were lawful and ethical, or to which no one would object.

Again, as above, if @G STAR RAM clearly feels what is being done is wrong and harmful, and only being done to the benefit of those making it happen. For it to work, there needs to be this secret plan, with established conspirators in both the government and media. 
So yeah, it's a conspiracy theory, by definition. If you wish to use other sources to look through the same, go right ahead. I picked wikipedia mostly because anyone can get to it easily. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Agree with this. 

We can't possibly achieve zero covid unless we vaccinate 100% of the population and quarantine everyone and everything that enters the country, legally or otherwise from now until whenever/forever.

If, as is expected, we've vaccinated all of the over 50s and vulnerable groups by April/May - or in other words, the people that make up 99% of all deaths and hospitalizations, we should absolutely fully reopen.

Callous as it may sound, insurance companies do put values on peoples lives and if we've protected 99% of the most at risk the economy must be allowed to reopen and people allowed to get back to 'normal'. 

There are already numerous debates raging around the long term effects of lockdowns - saving some lives now only to lose others to cancer etc later, unemployment, poverty, starvation etc.  Remaining in lockdown longer than necessary will only exacerbate those problems.

This logic doesn't really hold up. All the the issues around cancer treatments etc are related to case loads, not lockdowns, so if you're pushing that line, then you must be demanding that we wait until case loads are low again. Equally, the economic effects of opening up in uncertain times, and putting the cost burden of treatment of people with long term effects onto future generations sounds like a poor strategy. 

A staged opening, keeping the effective reproduction number below 1, seems like the best way to go about things. Thanks to the vaccine, this will be a sliding target, and done correctly, the UK should be able to fully reopen once the vaccine rollout is complete. As the vaccine roll out continues, this will allow the UK to approach elimination without needing to sacrifice lives and livelihoods. Thankfully, this seems to be the plan at the moment. 

[maxjam]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

This logic doesn't really hold up. All the the issues around cancer treatments etc are related to case loads, not lockdowns, so if you're pushing that line, then you must be demanding that we wait until case loads are low again. Equally, the economic effects of opening up in uncertain times, and putting the cost burden of treatment of people with long term effects onto future generations sounds like a poor strategy. 

A staged opening, keeping the effective reproduction number below 1, seems like the best way to go about things. Thanks to the vaccine, this will be a sliding target, and done correctly, the UK should be able to fully reopen once the vaccine rollout is complete. As the vaccine roll out continues, this will allow the UK to approach elimination without needing to sacrifice lives and livelihoods. Thankfully, this seems to be the plan at the moment. 

It does stack up, people aren't just being denied cancer treatment because hospitals are to busy but also because they are to scared to go and get something that may or may not be innocuous checked out at the Doctors. 

If, as several articles I've read over the weekend suggest, one of the vaccines is 100% effective at reducing both deaths and hospitalization, then after we have immunized the majorty of the elderly/vulnerable, the cost in not reopening starts to massively outweigh the cost of remaining locked down. 

Govt figures from the other day showed that the economic consequence of the current lockdown will kill an estimated 40k people already - remaining lockdown for a day longer than necessary  has the potential to kill far more than it will save. 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

It does stack up, people aren't just being denied cancer treatment because hospitals are to busy but also because they are to scared to go and get something that may or may not be innocuous checked out at the Doctors. 

The case loads are the big problem, and the effect you're discussing here isn't even solved by just 'opening up' either. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

If, as several articles I've read over the weekend suggest, one of the vaccines is 100% effective at reducing both deaths and hospitalization, then after we have immunized the majorty of the elderly/vulnerable, the cost in not reopening starts to massively outweigh the cost of remaining locked down. 

It depends if you care about people who get cancer or not, or if you care about the economy or not. Realistically, the best exit strategy to protect both is to open with the effective reproduction below 1, which will mean a staged opening.

Also, there's more people who are at risk of death than just 'the vulnerable' as such, and the long term impacts are still being studied, but already seem pretty worrisome. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Govt figures from the other day showed that the economic consequence of the current lockdown will kill an estimated 40k people already - remaining lockdown for a day longer than necessary  has the potential to kill far more than it will save. 

The economic consequences are something that the government should be supporting people through in this time. That's an entirely different point. Just opening up and leaving people to 'fend for themselves' so to speak is far from a cure all. As noted, many of the economic consequences are driven by case loads. Opening up and being forced into another lockdown would be catastrophic economically. The best option is, as noted, a staged opening keeping the effective reproduction number under 1. 

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

The case loads are the big problem, and the effect you're discussing here isn't even solved by just 'opening up' either. 

What case loads, if the vaccines are preventing 100% deaths/hospitalizations and we've immunized 99% of those likely to be effected?

 

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

It depends if you care about people who get cancer or not, or if you care about the economy or not. Realistically, the best exit strategy to protect both is to open with the effective reproduction below 1, which will mean a staged opening.

I care about people both effected by covid or cancer/anything else - but if we've protected 99% of the most vulnerable by Spring then its time to open up.

 

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

The economic consequences are something that the government should be supporting people through in this time. That's an entirely different point. 

Yup, free money for everyone, forever.  Have you seen how much the first lockdown cost the country?  I have seen any updated figures for the rest of 2020/2021.  

As noted, by spring we're on course to protect all the over 50s and vulnerable - 99% of those likely to be hopitalized.  It will be time to open back up.  

Its Saturday night, I've made my point.  Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[Albert]

Just now, maxjam said:

What case loads, if the vaccines are preventing 100% deaths/hospitalizations and we've immunized 99% of those likely to be effected?

Define 'likely to be effected'. The very vulnerable group isn't all people who could get sick and die. Your misunderstanding seems to be the point at which case loads will actually start dropping. 

Just now, maxjam said:

 

I care about people both effected by covid or cancer/anything else - but if we've protected 99% of the most vulnerable by Spring then its time to open up.

...so people from the other groups should die and live with live long impacts? It's the same problem as was previously occurring, until the case loads are low enough, preventative and elective medicine won't be able to resume at the same scale as previously seen. 

Just now, maxjam said:

 

Yup, free money for everyone, forever.  Have you seen how much the first lockdown cost the country?  I have seen any updated figures for the rest of 2020/2021.  

It's an investment in the economy. You're the only one calling it free money as well. Stimulus works to get people through such crises. 

Just now, maxjam said:

As noted, by spring we're on course to protect all the over 50s and vulnerable - 99% of those likely to be hopitalized.  It will be time to open back up.  

Its Saturday night, I've made my point.  Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

If the figure is true, then that will be seen in the figures, and would meet the definitions noted for a staged reopening anyhow. It seems the key issue is your own misunderstandings here. 

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

Ping...... Pong...... Ping...... Repeat

[maxjam]

26 minutes ago, Albert said:

Define 'likely to be effected'. The very vulnerable group isn't all people who could get sick and die. Your misunderstanding seems to be the point at which case loads will actually start dropping. 

CBA to find the NHS data, figured you'd approve of a nice Daily Mail article instead;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html

This was from the end of Dec so its a month or so out of date now but only a fraction of people under 50 with no underlying conditions have died from covid - if by the Spring we have vaccinated the elderly and vulnerable (we're on course to have everyone over 50 done by May) ie. those likely to be effected, we will have reduced deaths and hospitalizations by 99%. 

The vaccination program won't end there however everyone else will get one over the course of the summer, when traditionally flu like bugs die off anyway.  Not opening up in the spring will cause far more suffering that remaining locked down. 

 

26 minutes ago, Albert said:

It's an investment in the economy. You're the only one calling it free money as well. Stimulus works to get people through such crises. 

And its got to be paid back at somepoint.  Assuming we all have jobs to go back to when the time comes...

 

26 minutes ago, Albert said:

If the figure is true, then that will be seen in the figures, and would meet the definitions noted for a staged reopening anyhow. It seems the key issue is your own misunderstandings here. 

The figures are accurate, I recall viewing the NHS data at the time.  If you are under 50 with no underlying conditions the chances of you dying are tiny.  Define it how you want, but if we've hit the vaccination target by April/May it will be a 'crime' not to reopen.  

Enjoy your weekend, I have nothing further to add.

[sage]

So @Albert has 2 of the sceptics no longer replying to him. We may no longer reach 1000 pages by the end of the month. Come on you lazy conspiracy theorists, time to step up to the plate. 

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

CBA to find the NHS data, figured you'd approve of a nice Daily Mail article instead;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9090847/Only-377-people-aged-60-no-underlying-health-conditions-died-Covid-UK.html

This was from the end of Dec so its a month or so out of date now but only a fraction of people under 50 with no underlying conditions have died from covid - if by the Spring we have vaccinated the elderly and vulnerable (we're on course to have everyone over 50 done by May) ie. those likely to be effected, we will have reduced deaths and hospitalizations by 99%. 

The key one is the hospitalisations for opening up. Again, I think you're issue here is you misunderstand the terms of what was discussed were. I'd suggest going back and rereading. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The vaccination program won't end there however everyone else will get one over the course of the summer, when traditionally flu like bugs die off anyway.  Not opening up in the spring will cause far more suffering that remaining locked down. 

Depends on whether the gamble with delaying the second jab pays off. Let's hope it does. Sadly, at this time less than 1% of the UK's population has received that second jab. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

And its got to be paid back at somepoint.  Assuming we all have jobs to go back to when the time comes...

Yep. Much like anything though, if you don't invest, you can't reap the rewards of that investment. When you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, stimulus does allow countries to get through such times. 

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The figures are accurate, I recall viewing the NHS data at the time.  If you are under 50 with no underlying conditions the chances of you dying are tiny.  Define it how you want, but if we've hit the vaccination target by April/May it will be a 'crime' not to reopen.  

Enjoy your weekend, I have nothing further to add.

Again, it's hospitalisations that are the concern for many of the things you noted. 

1 minute ago, sage said:

So @Albert has 2 of the sceptics no longer replying to him. We may no longer reach 1000 pages by the end of the month. Come on you lazy conspiracy theorists, time to step up to the plate. 

To be fair, you can't expect them to respond to statistics and data, as it's devastating to their case. 

[Gone]

28 minutes ago, Albert said:

33 minutes ago, sage said:

 

To be fair, you can't expect them to respond to statistics and data, as it's devastating to their case

So we’ve vaccinated all the vulnerable and elderly (>60yrs old) can we open everything back up in your opinion? None of your waffle & BS just a simple Yes to No 

[maxjam]

44 minutes ago, Albert said:

The key one is the hospitalisations for opening up. Again, I think you're issue here is you misunderstand the terms of what was discussed were. I'd suggest going back and rereading. 

Okay I give up... what am I misunderstanding and what exactly do I need to reread?

As noted, various studies are now showing some vaccines have 100% efficacy against hospitalizations, such as this one for example;

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-analysis-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalization-death-suggests-protection-against-uk-variant

If we've vaccinated 99% of those likely to end up in hospital or die from covid by the spring, we have reduced covid related pressure on the NHS substantially - especially given that seasonal illnesses tend to drop off in the spring and summer anyway. 

Delaying the reopening of the economy beyond spring will do far more damage.

[Gone]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Okay I give up... what am I misunderstanding and what exactly do I need to reread?

As noted, various studies are now showing some vaccines have 100% efficacy against hospitalizations, such as this one for example;

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-analysis-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalization-death-suggests-protection-against-uk-variant

If we've vaccinated 99% of those likely to end up in hospital or die from covid by the spring, we have reduced covid related pressure on the NHS substantially - especially given that seasonal illnesses tend to drop off in the spring and summer anyway. 

Delaying the reopening of the economy beyond spring will do far more damage.

Beautiful put, I can’t wait or the responses...................

[Comrade 86]

8 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Beautiful put, I can’t wait or the responses...................

Up steps Tex to try and halve the hole..

[Comrade 86]

8 hours ago, Archied said:

Me ,,, can’t stand packed pubs , full of peed up people , last place I ever feel safe??‍♂️
I manage my own risks and don’t go in them?

Odd that you've never mentioned this before...

[Albert]

42 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

So we’ve vaccinated all the vulnerable and elderly (>60yrs old) can we open everything back up in your opinion? None of your waffle & BS just a simple Yes to No 

The UK hasn't, that's the whole point. Less than 0.8% of the population has received both doses. 

As noted, it seems the plan is to reopen is stages, keeping the effective reproduction number under 1. 

27 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Okay I give up... what am I misunderstanding and what exactly do I need to reread?

As noted, various studies are now showing some vaccines have 100% efficacy against hospitalizations, such as this one for example;

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-analysis-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalization-death-suggests-protection-against-uk-variant

If we've vaccinated 99% of those likely to end up in hospital or die from covid by the spring, we have reduced covid related pressure on the NHS substantially - especially given that seasonal illnesses tend to drop off in the spring and summer anyway. 

Delaying the reopening of the economy beyond spring will do far more damage.

What you've missed is what you're arguing is essentially the same as the effective reproduction number of the disease, at least the measurable number with the disease, being below 1 for key parts of the population. This is the same as what I was discussing. 

That said, you're also missing that there's a difference between 'likely to die' and 'those that will die'. I find it interesting that figures like 'only several hundred people have died without having pre-existing conditions' get spread about as though that makes their deaths okay. I find it funny that people brush past the long term effects that we're already seeing, while with no irony saying 'we're costing future generations too much'. 

Really, a staged opening works best for all parties, and gives some certainty to businesses to help with the changes. The gung-ho 'open it up' approach is what got the UK into this mess in the first place. 

[maxjam]

21 minutes ago, Albert said:

What you've missed is what you're arguing is essentially the same as the effective reproduction number of the disease, at least the measurable number with the disease, being below 1 for key parts of the population. This is the same as what I was discussing. 

It doesn't matter how high the R rate is assuming its spreading amongst those that by and large suffer mild effects - which will be the case if all of the over 50s and vulnerable will have been vaccinated.  For example, it was rife amongst the student population once the kids went back to school and universities last year - I didn't hear about 100s of those dying... 

Furthermore, as noted, it will be spring by the time we hit our vaccination target, seasonal illnesses tend to die off when the weather picks up, remaining locked up at that point will be counterproductive, especially as we will be continuing to vaccinate the rest of the population anyway throughout the summer.

 

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

That said, you're also missing that there's a difference between 'likely to die' and 'those that will die'. I find it interesting that figures like 'only several hundred people have died without having pre-existing conditions' get spread about as though that makes their deaths okay. I find it funny that people brush past the long term effects that we're already seeing, while with no irony saying 'we're costing future generations too much'. 

The stats from just prior to Christmas were less than 400 people under 60 had died from covid without pre-existing conditions.  TBH I am very happy to open the economy again if those are the figures.  I am not heartless, it must be devastating for their families involved, but people die everyday - 25x more people die from 'regular' flu or pneumonia every year.

As for long covid, I am specifically talking about opening up again in the spring after all the over 50s and vulnerable have been vaccinated and the weather is getting better, the R rate will drop as it did last year and we'll continue vaccinating the rest of the population throughout the summer.  Keeping us in lockdown will have negligible effect.

 

42 minutes ago, Albert said:

Really, a staged opening works best for all parties, and gives some certainty to businesses to help with the changes. The gung-ho 'open it up' approach is what got the UK into this mess in the first place. 

Whatever, you have your opinion, I have mine.  The conversation has already stagnated and I imagine it will be to everyone's relief if it ends here.

[Albert]

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It doesn't matter how high the R rate is assuming its spreading amongst those that by and large suffer mild effects - which will be the case if all of the over 50s and vulnerable will have been vaccinated.  For example, it was rife amongst the student population once the kids went back to school and universities last year - I didn't hear about 100s of those dying... 

It still does, as people outside the vulnerable group will stick get sick, and some will die. Young people, in the sub 25 range, very rarely get seriously ill, but that 30-50 range does have more risk attached. That pressure on the NHS is what is causing the issues for preventative and elective medicine. You can't say 'I care about people with cancer' and run with this line of logic you're pushing, they're are counter to one another. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Furthermore, as noted, it will be spring by the time we hit our vaccination target, seasonal illnesses tend to die off when the weather picks up, remaining locked up at that point will be counterproductive, especially as we will be continuing to vaccinate the rest of the population anyway throughout the summer.

...hence a staged return to normal...

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The stats from just prior to Christmas were less than 400 people under 60 had died from covid without pre-existing conditions.  TBH I am very happy to open the economy again if those are the figures.  I am not heartless, it must be devastating for their families involved, but people die everyday - 25x more people die from 'regular' flu or pneumonia every year.

400 is a lot of people, and it ignores the other side of the issue, which is that there is some back fill in the 'pre-existing' conditions argument, though that's a different discussion all together. Equally, the issue is that if it's left to burn through, it will go exponentially again. If that is left uncontrolled, it could be far more than 400 even with the same mortality rates. That's why a staged return to normal is best. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

As for long covid, I am specifically talking about opening up again in the spring after all the over 50s and vulnerable have been vaccinated and the weather is getting better, the R rate will drop as it did last year and we'll continue vaccinating the rest of the population throughout the summer.  Keeping us in lockdown will have negligible effect.

It's not just 'long Covid', it's already been shown that younger people, even those who were asymptomatic, can have measurable lung damage from Covid-19. Letting it burn through runs the risk of more people getting such. We mightn't know the full picture on all of that yet, but the potential damage could cost the UK's economy for a generation depending on overall prevalence. 

The one that is most annoying with this, is if such does eventuate, we will have people claiming 'how could we have known' when we already had the data suggesting this could be the cast early-mid last year. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Whatever, you have your opinion, I have mine.  The conversation has already stagnated and I imagine it will be to everyone's relief if it ends here.

I find it interesting that you end most of your posts like this, then just return to reiterate your previous points. 

[Tyler Durden]

The protagonists on here make the Handforth Parish Council Members  seem well reasoned, balanced and tolerant. 

[maxjam]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

I find it interesting that you end most of your posts like this, then just return to reiterate your previous points. 

Typically because your replies generally goad me into another response, either by muddying the conversation or rebuffing what you don't want to hear as tired and defeated or some version thereof. 

Whilst 400 deaths may be a lot of people, its not out of a population the size of the UK, certainly not enough to keep us locked down past the spring assuming all of the over 50s and vulnerable have had their jabs. 

It will not burn through the population assuming last year is anything to go by - the R rate remained low over the warmer months after the initial lockdown, only spiking again as the kids went back to school and universities and the weather turned to autumn, by which time this year most of the population will have been vaccinated. 

We will do far more damage to peoples health and finances by remaining locked down more than necessary. 

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Typically because your replies generally goad me into another response, either by muddying the conversation or rebuffing what you don't want to hear as tired and defeated or some version thereof. 

This is inherently the issue with you just repeating yourself, you will tend towards just stating points that have already been dealt with. 

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Whilst 400 deaths may be a lot of people, its not out of a population the size of the UK, certainly not enough to keep us locked down past the spring assuming all of the over 50s and vulnerable have had their jabs. 

Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the response to terrorism in the 00s then. 

As noted though, there's more to this than just '400 deaths', as those '400 deaths' refers to things still being somewhat slowed. 'Opening up', in the broadest sense, does not do that anymore, and from those 400 deaths, there would be many more people who were seriously ill and in need of hospital care, as well as though with long term consequences. 

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It will not burn through the population assuming last year is anything to go by - the R rate remained low over the warmer months after the initial lockdown, only spiking again as the kids went back to school and universities and the weather turned to autumn, by which time this year most of the population will have been vaccinated. 

It spiked as key areas were opened up. The weather alone did not achieve that. Equally, R_0 for the new strain is higher than the original, with further complicates things. 

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

We will do far more damage to peoples health and finances by remaining locked down more than necessary. 

We're not debating that though, we're debating what is necessary.