Generic Virus Thread

[HanoiVillan]

23 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

The 84 tonnes of PPE, including much needed gowns, that the government announced yesterday would be to be arriving into UK from Turkey today is not now going to get here today. Parts of the NHS are hours away from running out of gowns.

Yet again, they make a firm, detailed promise and it turns out not to happen. You'd think they'd have learned by now.

[chrisp65]

25 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

would you lose a family member to keep 100% of your wages. And of course every person would say no. I can only assume people who are happy to risk lives to keep the economy strong haven't been affected by the virus or aren't scared of it affecting them. 

 

Can we specify the family member?

[Davkaus]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Can we specify the family member?

I've got a few I'd sacrifice, does that get me a raise?

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm not going to keep debating this as I know I'm either not making myself clear or there is a lack of understanding from either side.

15,000 + 4,000 people = 19,500 who have died WITH Coronavirus. My argument is neither you or I actually know how many died BECAUSE of Coronavirus. Is that a statement I am not making clear? I am not suggesting the deaths are lies, I am suggesting the means of recording are deeply flawed. Clearly, if 1 person had died because of Covid out of those numbers, this whole situation would be a spectacular over-reaction. If 19,000 died because of it then the argument would be this is up there with plague in terms of death rate! The only way to try and get an inkling of the real deaths from Covid is to look at excess deaths which has only upturned in the last week or two. Even then you've got to ask are those deaths due to Coronvirus or lockdown (fear of hospitals not getting treatment etc).

I've read replies with a mixture of, 'ok, I didn't know that' to 'that's a complete misunderstanding of statistics' but what I don't see from all the people who think this full lockdown is needed is the possibility they don't know all the answers. No-one does. 

In the week ending 3rd of April, 6,000 more people died than the average for that week of the year. I don’t know if there are any stats yet for the weeks after that, but it would suggest that there are still thousands and thousands of extra deaths because of this. 
 

You’re right that the actual cause of death may be lower than the 20,000 ish number. But it’s still thousands and thousands of people dying. And it’s undeniable that that number would be far bigger if we weren’t locked down. 
 

Is there any science behind the claim that the lockdown will cause more deaths than coronavirus would have caused if left unchecked?

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm not going to keep debating this as I know I'm either not making myself clear or there is a lack of understanding from either side.

15,000 + 4,000 people = 19,500 who have died WITH Coronavirus. My argument is neither you or I actually know how many died BECAUSE of Coronavirus. Is that a statement I am not making clear? I am not suggesting the deaths are lies, I am suggesting the means of recording are deeply flawed.

This distinction that you're determined to make between 'dying with' and 'dying from' is not a distinction that I have ever heard anyone make in any context previous to this virus. Where are all the cancer truthers wanting to know whether people are dying 'with but not from' cancer?

Something is either listed as a cause of death or it isn't. Deaths can have multiple causes (and often do). Just because there are multiple causes of death, doesn't mean that one of the causes isn't important.

5 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

If 19,000 died because of it then the argument would be this is up there with plague in terms of death rate!

No, it wouldn't?

[limpid]

9 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

Addition; My view as regards lockdown is in relation to full lockdown. I think, based on the data, some actions are required that are not required in a normal situation. In this instance, schools should be open, shops should reopen following same guidelines as supermarkets but mass events should still remain off the agenda til even more data is available. Clearly there should be extra protection around vulnerable (primarily older) groups. I don't think a full lockdown is beneficial and think it may cause more problems and deaths both short and long term.

Some schools were being forced to close due to staff shortages before it was official. They were no longer able to provide a safe learning environment. If it became policy that schools open, who will be teaching when the teachers get ill?

The knock-on effects of stripping core services to the minimum isn't only applicable to the NHS.

[markavfc40]

I wonder how long Vallance and Whitty are going to play along with the Government on this when they say they have been following the scientific advice given that from reports today the government ignored or didn't treat seriously enough the scientific advice back in February.

They are either going to go down as being complicit in these failings, or worse still be blamed by the Government, or they are going to have to grow a pair and call the government out.

I got the impression yesterday that Powis (medical director in NHS )was on the verge of sticking a knife in around the PPE issue at yesterdays press conference but then held back.

 

[chrisp65]

Are we once again skirting around this ‘they would have died anyway’ argument?

I find it odd that for years we’ve tried to fix the ailments of people with multiple illnesses, or co morbidities as we’ve all recently learnt to describe them. But for some reason, this new virus is proving one illness too many for people to handle.

Yes, spend time and money on elderly people with a heart condition and a liver problem, but should they get this fourth thing, well is it really worth trying to help them? I can’t go down the chip shop or watch the Villa because someone’s nan is at risk. How is that fair on me?

It’s a very similar mentality to people that can’t see how slowing down your driving in town might save children’s lives. Yes, statistically it might. But it will take me an extra 4 minutes to get to Nando’s, so **** ‘em.

[Jareth]

2 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

They are either going to go down as being complicit in these failings, or worse still be blamed by the Government

 

Its already happened, the details of the SAGE membership was leaked last week - desperate time for those in charge.

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

15,000 + 4,000 people = 19,500 who have died WITH Coronavirus. My argument is neither you or I actually know how many died BECAUSE of Coronavirus. Is that a statement I am not making clear?

Well yes because you are saying its not 20,000 when in fact EVREY indication is that it is MUCH more. Every single one of those 19,500 (plus thousands more) died because of CV19, I'm not sure why you aren't getting that. Bear in mind those are just the Hospital plus a low care home estimate (many estimates are double that), it still doesn't include those that died at home because of CV19. You are saying it isn't as high as 20.000 when in fact every single indication is that it is MUCH MUCH MORE than that

You're making your point perfectly clear, it doesn't make it right or informed. It's an opinion, one that is demonstrably WRONG

[Jareth]

Think it's important this is read widely https://archive.is/20200418182037/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh

Quote

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears. Failings in February may have cost

 

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

You’re right about not having all the data and not knowing until after the event. But isn’t that precisely what would make it an unacceptable risk not to have locked down? Imagine if we’d decided to just hope for this snake oil herd immunity another couple of weeks, a few more Cheltenham’s and a few more Sterephonics concerts. 

New Zealand locked down and tested early. Of their population of 4 million, they had 11 deaths. Wales, locked down late, doesn’t test. Of it’s population of 3 million, 354 deaths.

I’m not an expert and I’m not a statistician, but I’d guess postponing or abandoning or loosening the lockdown would not have a good impact on that death figure.

While Wales and New Zealand have similar populations, the latter is an island whereas Wales has an open border with England.  While we were a week or two late in locking down I think Wales would always have had more deaths than NZ.  I wonder if it being their summer has an effect too. 

[bannedfromHandV]

15,000-20,000 is a big number.

But 0.02 - 0.03% is minuscule (percentage of population)

Its hard because every one of those 15-20,000 is a life with friends and family but if you had £67,000,000 in your bank account and lost £20,000 of it somehow are you likely to lose your shit? No.

[jackbauer24]

If I made allergies a notifiable disease, every year 600,000 people would die of hayfever. Covid is currently a notifiable disease, it won't remain so. 

If you're argument is the lockdown is saving lives fullstop then you must also be saying we shouldn't reopen until it is fully safe to do so. That could be years or, if it mutates at all to render vaccines practically useless like the flu, forever.

So what is your calculation? How many people are you prepared to let die in YOUR maths? Because we all must have it. When do you open the lockdown? Why is 5000 extra deaths acceptable? Why don't you insist on closing down during flu outbreaks? There HAS to be a calculation but no one is willing to talk about it.

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

15,000-20,000 is a big number.

But 0.02 - 0.03% is minuscule (percentage of population)

Its hard because every one of those 15-20,000 is a life with friends and family but if you had £67,000,000 in your bank account and lost £20,000 of it somehow are you likely to lose your shit? No.

You wouldn’t lose your shit. 
 

But if you’d frozen all of your accounts and Cancelled all your cards and standing orders and direct debits, and you’d STILL lost 20 grand, you’d probably be rightly wondering how bad the damage would have been if you’d taken no action

[Seat68]

46 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Think it's important this is read widely https://archive.is/20200418182037/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh

They elected the ****, they can put up with him. 

[DCJonah]

2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

15,000-20,000 is a big number.

But 0.02 - 0.03% is minuscule (percentage of population)

Its hard because every one of those 15-20,000 is a life with friends and family but if you had £67,000,000 in your bank account and lost £20,000 of it somehow are you likely to lose your shit? No.

You're comparing individual human lives with money?

No in terms of the population its not a huge percentage but its people dying who might not have died. 

When a terrorist drives a van into a crowd, he kills a very small percentage of the countries population, but rarely if ever do people shrug it off and make this claim. 

Loss of life is a tragedy. 

 

[bannedfromHandV]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

You wouldn’t lose your shit. 
 

But if you’d frozen all of your accounts and Cancelled all your cards and standing orders and direct debits, and you’d STILL lost 20 grand, you’d probably be rightly wondering how bad the damage would have been if you’d taken no action

I don’t want to continue the analogy for too long because it’s not the best but the reality is none of thats really happened has it?

We haven’t frozen accounts at all (reduced spending to essential things only in this analogy).

And any cancellations of direct debits etc was done far too late I think it can be agreed upon now.

[Awol]

The Times article is damning. Gove said on Sky this morning that government would respond in detail to it later today, so that arrow clearly found its mark. 

I haven’t had time this morning, but it would be interesting to pick out the key dates where decisions were or weren’t taken and compare them to the postings that day in this thread.

I suspect it will show that the country would be safer (and more fun) if run by a committee from VT. 
 

 

[Jareth]

4 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

They elected the ****, they can put up with him. 

Agreed - but they realise which way the wind is blowing - if nothing else their readership is dying.