Generic Virus Thread

[markavfc40]

20 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is the whole article available anywhere?

 

You can read parts of it here:

 

[bickster]

4 hours ago, sne said:

Belarus and North Korea are 2 countries we are never going to get accurate information from.

Oh and China and the UK

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Genie said:

Answer to a lot of questions aimed at the politicians for failures is “there’s too much competition due to worldwide demand”... doesn’t bode well for when we go full Brexit. 

And funny how the competition is worldwide and we’re still doing worse than everyone else

[maqroll]

I'm beginning to see the writing on the wall for the hospitality industry. Even if Gov. Mills (D-ME) lifts the lockdown on June 1, how many people are going to come pouring into bars and restaurants, and how many cruise ships will be full and regularly docking here in Portland? Unless you have really deep pockets, I don't see how small time operators are going to be able to cover expenses unless additional, regular relief payments come down the pike, but I doubt they will. The Cider House survived the winter and we saw our numbers starting to trend back up in early March. We were poised to do really well all summer long and up through November. Dec-March are slow here. But now everything is ****. 

[Awol]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

I'm beginning to see the writing on the wall for the hospitality industry. Even if Gov. Mills (D-ME) lifts the lockdown on June 1, how many people are going to come pouring into bars and restaurants, and how many cruise ships will be full and regularly docking here in Portland? Unless you have really deep pockets, I don't see how small time operators are going to be able to cover expenses unless additional, regular relief payments come down the pike, but I doubt they will. The Cider House survived the winter and we saw our numbers starting to trend back up in early March. We were poised to do really well all summer long and up through November. Dec-March are slow here. But now everything is ****. 

Honestly, learn to drive a tractor and head west for a while. People gotta eat. No one alive has seen anything like the mess we’re headed into, forget the coo-ing reassurance of snake oil politicians. If they told the truth they’d be running for their lives in 2 minutes flat. We’re in the shit. 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Awol

[jackbauer24]

I feel like I'm in a tiny minority here but I still don't get it.

Every decision we make in life involves an element of risk. We don't ban cars because people die in crashes. We don't close down over Xmas because flu kills loads of extra people. Initially we were dealing with an unknown virus and I have no issue with caution at all, but now it feels like people are scared to question if we're on the right path. Questioning in itself is not the same as Trumpism stupidity.

It is not a case of lockdown or deaths. It's not that simple as much as some would like it to be. Lockdown causes deaths. Economy collapses cause deaths. Sheer amounts of money being spent mean that investment in the NHS in future will be cut causing deaths. We could be in a situation where the lockdown causes more deaths than coronavirus.

I know for sure that 20,000 people have not died OF coronavirus, 20,000 people have died WITH coronavirus. I don't know what that percentage break down is but rudimentary stats seem to suggest that, only very recently, the total death rate in this country is now above the five year average. However, even that has only slightly been attributed to Covid. The fear of Covid is possibly causing more deaths - people holding off calling ambulances for strokes, people with mental health issues struggling, crucial operations being called off, individuals drinking more than they would etc etc. Testing and hindsight will only ever paint a clearer picture.

I consider myself quite left wing. I personally have no direct job/wage worries caused by this. I also don't think there is any great conspiracy from anyone to particularly manipulate this situation for their own gain. What I do think is we are increasingly becoming a society that is afraid to challenge, afraid to ask difficult questions for fear of upsetting anyone and a society that is afraid to admit mistakes.

I don't know the answers but I think it is wrong to shut down anyone who questions the path. Nothing improves without challenge. The lockdown is killing people and the longer it goes on the more people it will kill directly and indirectly. This isn't a direct economic discussion, this is balancing x lives vs x lives and is a calculation that needs openly discussing.

I don't think a full lockdown is necessary personally based on what I know. However I also, as anybody of any intelligence should, don't think I am definitely right! But questioning it is an important part of scientific thinking. Hospitals are at 80% capacity, private hospitals far more, Nightingale in London apparently has fewer than 20 people in it and the others aren't currently in use. The death rate seems to be around 1-2% in countries that have tested large numbers and quite possibly even lower. Most countries (and certainly the UK) have a biased selection of testing aimed at those who are clearly risk categories or already significantly ill.

I don't for one second advocate stubborn denial but we're in a very different place than we were when we were dealing with lots of mixed information. There clearly are risk categories, outlying cases will happen with all diseases but are being highlighted by the press as another sign of the apocalypse. The NHS have said they can now cope with any surge even if I suspect it will never be needed.

There are clearly things we can do and caution should always be taken when considering lives but lockdown causes deaths and may cause more deaths in the short term and long term than covid does. My only conspiracy belief is that I strongly suspect no government would ever admit to mistakes and no opposition would ever want to be seen to be making difficult conversations.

But the majority seem to just be happy clapping rather than questioning everything. Even if the right decisions are being made then it is still right to question. There will come a time, as cold as it may be, that we will have a much better idea of how many people this virus actually killed. If it was 1000 excess deaths and we destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people and indirectly killed 100,000 due to poverty, unemployment or simply avoiding hospitals or delayed operations it clearly wouldn't have been worth it. As cynical as it is those are the calculations that need making.

It is not economy vs lives. It is lives vs lives.

[mikeyp102]

2 hours ago, maqroll said:

I'm beginning to see the writing on the wall for the hospitality industry. Even if Gov. Mills (D-ME) lifts the lockdown on June 1, how many people are going to come pouring into bars and restaurants, and how many cruise ships will be full and regularly docking here in Portland? Unless you have really deep pockets, I don't see how small time operators are going to be able to cover expenses unless additional, regular relief payments come down the pike, but I doubt they will. The Cider House survived the winter and we saw our numbers starting to trend back up in early March. We were poised to do really well all summer long and up through November. Dec-March are slow here. But now everything is ****. 

It may be different in the states, but I can almost guarantee that once lockdown is lifted here in the UK, pubs (in particular) but also restaurants will be heaving, it will be like New Year’s Eve the amount of alcohol that will be sold. 
Travel industry may get affected though, although everyone will want a holiday, the thought of being in a plane/ship having recycled air Pumped round could scare a lot of people. Again, only based on the UK but I could actually see gone tourism increase as people will just stay in the same country.

[Stevo985]

32 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I feel like I'm in a tiny minority here but I still don't get it.

Every decision we make in life involves an element of risk. We don't ban cars because people die in crashes. We don't close down over Xmas because flu kills loads of extra people. Initially we were dealing with an unknown virus and I have no issue with caution at all, but now it feels like people are scared to question if we're on the right path. Questioning in itself is not the same as Trumpism stupidity.

It is not a case of lockdown or deaths. It's not that simple as much as some would like it to be. Lockdown causes deaths. Economy collapses cause deaths. Sheer amounts of money being spent mean that investment in the NHS in future will be cut causing deaths. We could be in a situation where the lockdown causes more deaths than coronavirus.

I know for sure that 20,000 people have not died OF coronavirus, 20,000 people have died WITH coronavirus. I don't know what that percentage break down is but rudimentary stats seem to suggest that, only very recently, the total death rate in this country is now above the five year average. However, even that has only slightly been attributed to Covid. The fear of Covid is possibly causing more deaths - people holding off calling ambulances for strokes, people with mental health issues struggling, crucial operations being called off, individuals drinking more than they would etc etc. Testing and hindsight will only ever paint a clearer picture.

I consider myself quite left wing. I personally have no direct job/wage worries caused by this. I also don't think there is any great conspiracy from anyone to particularly manipulate this situation for their own gain. What I do think is we are increasingly becoming a society that is afraid to challenge, afraid to ask difficult questions for fear of upsetting anyone and a society that is afraid to admit mistakes.

I don't know the answers but I think it is wrong to shut down anyone who questions the path. Nothing improves without challenge. The lockdown is killing people and the longer it goes on the more people it will kill directly and indirectly. This isn't a direct economic discussion, this is balancing x lives vs x lives and is a calculation that needs openly discussing.

I don't think a full lockdown is necessary personally based on what I know. However I also, as anybody of any intelligence should, don't think I am definitely right! But questioning it is an important part of scientific thinking. Hospitals are at 80% capacity, private hospitals far more, Nightingale in London apparently has fewer than 20 people in it and the others aren't currently in use. The death rate seems to be around 1-2% in countries that have tested large numbers and quite possibly even lower. Most countries (and certainly the UK) have a biased selection of testing aimed at those who are clearly risk categories or already significantly ill.

I don't for one second advocate stubborn denial but we're in a very different place than we were when we were dealing with lots of mixed information. There clearly are risk categories, outlying cases will happen with all diseases but are being highlighted by the press as another sign of the apocalypse. The NHS have said they can now cope with any surge even if I suspect it will never be needed.

There are clearly things we can do and caution should always be taken when considering lives but lockdown causes deaths and may cause more deaths in the short term and long term than covid does. My only conspiracy belief is that I strongly suspect no government would ever admit to mistakes and no opposition would ever want to be seen to be making difficult conversations.

But the majority seem to just be happy clapping rather than questioning everything. Even if the right decisions are being made then it is still right to question. There will come a time, as cold as it may be, that we will have a much better idea of how many people this virus actually killed. If it was 1000 excess deaths and we destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people and indirectly killed 100,000 due to poverty, unemployment or simply avoiding hospitals or delayed operations it clearly wouldn't have been worth it. As cynical as it is those are the calculations that need making.

It is not economy vs lives. It is lives vs lives.

It's not a case of how many people this virus HAS killed, it's how many it would have killed had we not taken the actions that we have. 20,000ish people have died (so far). You can debate that number if you like, I actually think, if anything, that number is higher than what we're being told rather than less like you suggest, but that's for another debate.

But that's WITH the action we've taken. The 1-2% death rate is in those countries where they've taken similar actions to try and stop the spread. If you let it spread more and hospitals get overwhelmed then that death rate is likely to be far far higher.

Had we not locked down you'd be looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths. 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Stevo985

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I feel like I'm in a tiny minority here but I still don't get it.

 

There’s been no way of truly knowing what happened in China. So the first real evidence we have is Italy, which was only a few weeks ahead of us. What was known was that this was a new and potentially devastating virus. If it really does kill 2% then in the UK, that’s 1,400,000 deaths. That would be quite a number to take on the chin

Without slowing it down and giving ourselves some planning time, in the starkest terms, how would we even dispose of a million bodies?

Plus there is the potential there is stuff we don’t know yet, what if it can re infect, or leave people permanently disabled or in reduced health? What if it mutates?

We make lives versus money decisions all the time, we decide how much money we will invest in heart medicine or stroke prevention. But we know the pay off and we know the consequences.

We didn’t / don’t know the story here. Imagine if we decided, let’s take it on the chin. Then it turns out it’s going to take 10% and disable another 20%?

It’s not easy stuff. Glad I’m not the decision maker. Though I reckon if I was, I’d attend the COBRA meetings, unlike the fat lazy lying oaf we have in charge at the moment.

[Chindie]

Schrödinger's Lockdown.

A lockdown isn't needed because the effect of the lockdown that is in place has reduced the need for a lockdown.

[markavfc40]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[maqroll]

I hope Johnson and Trump are hanged for this dereliction of duty.

[Troglodyte]

YeAh but BORIS is a HERO he fought it off himself like churchill I dont see you making decisions while your dying hes trying his best for the county everyone makes bad choices sometimes so why dont you stop with your loony left corbyn communism crap and get behind OUR BORIS 

 

[maqroll]

Just now, maqroll said:

I hope Johnson and Trump are hanged for this dereliction of duty.

Well maybe just Trump. Boris should be forced to eat seasoned food for one whole month.

[Swerbs]

4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is the whole article available anywhere?

 

Full article here http://archive.vn/ofnfS

[jackbauer24]

I'm not going to get into an argument as no one knows any definitive figures but what I can guarantee is that there has NOT been 20,000 extra deaths in this country. No scientist will tell you that because it is simply untrue. 20,000 people have not died BECAUSE of Covid19. The figures, regardless of whether you believe government numbers or add on ones outside hospitals do not differentiate between it being a direct reason for a death or simply a factor (or possibly even just present). If 20,000 extra people had died I would definitely understand! I don't know the number who have died because of the virus and neither do you - that is guess work on our parts. That is a failure on transparent data collection. Overall death rates have increased marginally since early April but we equally have to guess how many are caused by Covid and how many are caused by not seeking treatment for fear of Covid or cancelled operations etc. I am not for one second suggesting it's a lie or a hoax but there are QUESTIONS and we should ask them and dig in to information more deeply. And, cold as it is, those numbers do matter as they impact decisions and how you save more lives. The extreme is we stay locked down forever and very few ever die of anything contagious - there will always be a balance.

The same applies to the joke of Schrödinger's Lockdown. If you are suggesting the lockdown itself doesn't contribute to deaths both short term and long term you are simplifying a very complex calculation. For example, most experts (which I am definitely not) can clearly correlate an economic dip/recession with increasing mortality rates - this has been proven historically and makes sense, a unemployed, poorer country can not maintain healthy individuals. So yes, inevitably a lockdown will have a positive impact on ALL contagious diseases but equally it will have a negative impact on many other diseases (heart, mental or delayed treatments) as well as increased national poverty.

The only way to ever look at this properly will be after the event. The only thing that worries me is people's unwillingness to really think about uncomfortable calculations. And each calculation is somebody's life. I'm not of this view point because I worry of money, I have a question because I currently believe this will result in more deaths. But I'm also more than happy for someone to suggest valid reasons for why I could be wrong. The most dangerous person in any situation is the one who is steadfast in the belief their viewpoint is beyond reproach. 

But I know I'm in a minority because it's not in people's nature to question or look at data and evidence anymore - otherwise we wouldn't have a Tory party leading us out of Europe! People have become sheep. To question is a good thing, even if you're completely wrong.

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.

Edited April 19, 2020 by jackbauer24

[il_serpente]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

I hope Johnson and Trump are hanged for this dereliction of duty.

But if Trump hadn't stopped allowing people from China into the country the death toll would have been 2 million people, so he's actually a hero.   Haven't you heard?

[Spoony]

The other day this really felt like a film for me. I was in the supermarket on my allotted shopping day (in the Cayman Islands the permitted days for shopping are by surname) and I was pushing around a shopping cart in a relatively deserted isle and the tannoy announced to abide by social distancing rules and to only buy a max of two of each item. I felt like there could have been a camera watching me shop with a colour reducing filter then it’d suddenly cut to me paying for my things with a check out lady behind a glass screen.

It’s all so surreal but I’m pretty grateful that here at least the government reacted very quickly. Becoming very stir crazy though but because I can work from home I really can’t complain. I worry for a lot of our workers in the tourism industry though who can’t get home. Really hope they’re getting the support they need.  

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm not going to get into an argument as no one knows any definitive figures but what I can guarantee is that there has NOT been 20,000 extra deaths in this country. No scientist will tell you that because it is simply untrue. 20,000 people have not died BECAUSE of Covid19. The figures, regardless of whether you believe government numbers or add on ones outside hospitals do not differentiate between it being a direct reason for a death or simply a factor (or possibly even just present). If 20,000 extra people had died I would definitely understand! I don't know the number who have died because of the virus and neither do you - that is guess work on our parts. That is a failure on transparent data collection. Overall death rates have increased marginally since early April but we equally have to guess how many are caused by Covid and how many are caused by not seeking treatment for fear of Covid or cancelled operations etc. I am not for one second suggesting it's a lie or a hoax but there are QUESTIONS and we should ask them and dig in to information more deeply. And, cold as it is, those numbers do matter as they impact decisions and how you save more lives. The extreme is we stay locked down forever and very few ever die of anything contagious - there will always be a balance.

The same applies to the joke of Schrödinger's Lockdown. If you are suggesting the lockdown itself doesn't contribute to deaths both short term and long term you are simplifying a very complex calculation. For example, most experts (which I am definitely not) can clearly correlate an economic dip/recession with increasing mortality rates - this has been proven historically and makes sense, a unemployed, poorer country can not maintain healthy individuals. So yes, inevitably a lockdown will have a positive impact on ALL contagious diseases but equally it will have a negative impact on many other diseases (heart, mental or delayed treatments) as well as increased national poverty.

The only way to ever look at this properly will be after the event. The only thing that worries me is people's unwillingness to really think about uncomfortable calculations. And each calculation is somebody's life. I'm not of this view point because I worry of money, I have a question because I currently believe this will result in more deaths. But I'm also more than happy for someone to suggest valid reasons for why I could be wrong. The most dangerous person in any situation is the one who is steadfast in the belief their viewpoint is beyond reproach. 

But I know I'm in a minority because it's not in people's nature to question or look at data and evidence anymore - otherwise we wouldn't have a Tory party leading us out of Europe! People have become sheep. To question is a good thing, even if you're completely wrong.

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.

I have made these points on here myself. The biggest thing we are fighting is the unknown and that is why there is an abundance of caution. However in the long term there is a significant chance our overly cautious approach will end up killing more people than the virus would have. However, because we don’t really know we are naturally going to be cautious. 

My biggest surprise about this whole thing has been just how unprepared most countries were for it. You’d think there would be more of a blue print to follow when something like this happens but for many governments the thought process literally seems to have gone like this: 

Step 1: It’s no big deal, ignore it.

Step 2: Oh shit! It’s not no big deal! Shut everything down!!!

Step 3: ????

I think it’s going to be fascinating to look at how different countries fared after the event though. Particularly countries that have literally done nothing or countries like Sweden who have resisted shutting down their economies or countries who only run a short lockdown and then reopened.

My laypersons guess is that the majority of us are going to end up getting it and society will develop a herd immunity as the virus will likely not be stopped regardless of what we do. However, provided hospital care can be maintained, the final number of excess deaths will likely be similar to a bad flu season.

[LondonLax]

5 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

It's not a case of how many people this virus HAS killed, it's how many it would have killed had we not taken the actions that we have. 20,000ish people have died (so far). You can debate that number if you like, I actually think, if anything, that number is higher than what we're being told rather than less like you suggest, but that's for another debate.

But that's WITH the action we've taken. The 1-2% death rate is in those countries where they've taken similar actions to try and stop the spread. If you let it spread more and hospitals get overwhelmed then that death rate is likely to be far far higher.

Had we not locked down you'd be looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths. 

That number isn’t scientific fact. It’s one modelling scenario developed based on very limited data and a lot of assumptions.

It’s right to act on it as we don’t have very much else to go on but it’s also right to question our actions taken as a result of it, as the original poster was doing.