Generic Virus Thread

[bannedfromHandV]

9 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

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. 

 

Okay, so firstly the ignoring my posts is going well then? 
 

Secondly, I’m not comparing it at all, I’m using an analogy, I assume as a teacher you understand the difference between the two (though judging on the standard of people leaving school these days perhaps not).

 

It’s an adult conversation, please try to keep up.

[chrisp65]

I know it’s looking a little bit off for Boris at the moment. Yes, he’s a liar that’s been promoted beyond any ability and it looks like thousands will die because of him. But on the other hand, he is quite funny and he is posh.

So overall I can fully understand the approval ratings. Especially with another lovely baby on the way.

Churchill for modern times. Get Covid done!

[Davkaus]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Get Covid done!

More appropriately for Johnson, "Get Covid? Done!".

[Stevo985]

11 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

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.

I just meant if you’d taken loads of preventative action and you’d still lost that amount you’d be wondering how bad the effect would have been if you’d done nothing. 
 

We’ve taken a LOT of preventative action. Not enough and too late, but we’ve still taken action. And we’ve still lost 20,000 lives. 
 

The argument that we shouldn’t have locked down despite this is crazy to me. 

[Jareth]

13 minutes ago, Awol said:

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. 
 

 

You also have to ask, if VT had ALL the data at those times. 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

I just meant if you’d taken loads of preventative action and you’d still lost that amount you’d be wondering how bad the effect would have been if you’d done nothing. 
 

We’ve taken a LOT of preventative action. Not enough and too late, but we’ve still taken action. And we’ve still lost 20,000 lives. 
 

The argument that we shouldn’t have locked down despite this is crazy to me. 

I think it’s likely to be (ironically) an eventuality of the lockdown itself but I’m straying more and more into conspiracy thinking around all of this.

Something seems really off about it all and I don’t quite know why, that we have the most inept and deceitful government in place in history doesn’t help of course.

Whether the measures have been too extreme or not extreme enough we’ll likely never know, but the reality is that it cannot continue indefinitely because the costs (fiscally and otherwise) are just not sustainable, people’s health beyond COVID-19 (both mental and physical) cannot be sustained indefinitely, the economy cannot be sustained indefinitely, the government can’t prop up the economy indefinitely etc etc.

 

The whole situ is totally messed up, it’s crazy and I don’t have the answers, I’m not even sure what the questions should be to be honest but as I pointed out weeks ago, we will reach a point where we have to move on with an acceptable rate of people dying (whatever that acceptable rate may be).

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

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.

Speaking personally, I'm perfectly happy to talk about it. You are correct that zero mortality is not a realistic expectation. The calculation which is being made - and I'm sure you've heard of the phrase 'flattening the curve' - is at what point can you open things up more, without the resultant increase in cases overwhelming the healthcare system, as we have seen happen in Wuhan, Lombardy and New York.

[DCJonah]

16 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Okay, so firstly the ignoring my posts is going well then? 
 

Secondly, I’m not comparing it at all, I’m using an analogy, I assume as a teacher you understand the difference between the two (though judging on the standard of people leaving school these days perhaps not).

 

It’s an adult conversation, please try to keep up.

Which part did I ignore? 

An analogy is a comparison. Your analogy was comparing the loss of human life to losing an amount of money. I won't make a personal insult towards you, as you've done towards me, but please check the dictionary definition of analogy for confirmation.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by DCJonah

[snowychap]

43 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

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.

Also, the 'extra' deaths is not a simple x minus y.

You've got to factor in the differences in circumstances.

That week last year (and the weeks leading up to it), there was not a vastly reduced level of economic activity and much less social contact (not only coronavirus spreads that way). There will also be some things going the other way but a simple flat comparison of the numbers in 2020 v a five year average will only give an overview and may not tell the real picture, i.e. one should be comparing the deaths with a lockdown with coronavirus in 2020 to how many deaths we should expect to see in any given year also with the same sort of lockdown (and no coronavirus).

[snowychap]

30 minutes ago, Awol said:

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

I'm sure there was something in a bolitics thread a few years ago where someone came up with a VT cabinet.

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

...you must also be saying we shouldn't reopen until it is fully safe to do so...There HAS to be a calculation but no one is willing to talk about it.

We shouldn't be unlocked until it is viably safe  to do so. That's right there does need to be a calculation . Again, the calculation requires information and data and facts. For those to be gained we need to know who is at risk of harm. For that we need to know who is also not at risk - who has had it already, and whether that renders them immune, and if so for how long.

To understand who has had it we need testing. Widespread testing of the population, plus the results from the testing done so far. These people can then be allowed to safely circulate. You could also allow the least vulnerable who have not had it to have some more freedom, but they would need to absolutely not then endanger elderly or at risk people in their homes or wherever - so they'd need repeat testing to ensure they remain free from infection. There's a whole load more to this but the essential point is that we need mass testing, with quick results and/or a vaccine before life can return to normal. In the interim restrictions have to remain in place. Of course that, as you say, causes problems for the economy, other health condition people and so on. The flipside is that hospitals can't address these other health condition people if the hospitals are overwhelmed with people in serious trouble from the virus, or have their staff off sick with virus. So, yes. Until it is viably safe restrictions have to remain. They could ease and re-impose, ease and re-impose, they could select parts of the population, or parts of the country based on local circs to reduce restrictions, and that's what they'll need to do. But mostly people will have to modify their behaviour for a very long time yet. There is no other path.

[Guest av1]

Government update on the corona virus lockdown ! 

Clarification of the lockdown rules:

1. You MUST NOT leave the house for any reason, but if you have a reason, you can leave the house.

2. Masks are useless at protecting you against the virus, but you may have to wear one because it can save lives, but they may not work, but they may be mandatory, but maybe not.

3. Shops are closed, except those shops that are open.

4. You must not go to work but you can get another job and go to work.

5. You should not go to the Doctor's or to the hospital unless you have to go there, unless you are too poorly to go there.

6. This virus can kill people, but don’t be scared of it. It can only kill those people who are vulnerable or those people who are not vulnerable. It’s possible to contain and control it, sometimes, except that sometimes it actually leads to a global disaster.

7. Gloves won't help, but they can still help so wear them sometimes, or not.

8. STAY HOME, but it's important to go out.

9. There is no shortage of groceries in the supermarkets, but there are many things missing. Sometimes you won’t need loo rolls but you should buy some just in case you need some.

10. The virus has no effect on children except those children it affects.

11. Animals are not affected, but there was a cat that tested positive in Belgium in February when no one had been tested, plus a few tigers here and there…

12. Stay 2 metres away from tigers (see point 11).

13. You will have many symptoms if you get the virus, but you can also get symptoms without getting the virus, get the virus without having any symptoms or be contagious without having symptoms, or be non contagious with symptoms...it's a sort of lucky/unlucky dip.

14. To help protect yourself you should eat well and exercise, but eat whatever you have on hand as it's better not to go to the shops, unless you need toilet roll or a fence panel.

15. It's important to get fresh air but don't go to parks but go for a walk. But don’t sit down, except if you are old, but not for too long or if you are pregnant or if you’re not old or pregnant but need to sit down. If you do sit down don’t eat your picnic, unless you've had a long walk, which you are/aren't allowed to do if you're old or pregnant.

16. Don’t visit old people but you have to take care of the old people and bring them food and medication.

17. If you are sick, you can go out when you are better but anyone else in your household can’t go out when you are better unless they need to go out.

18. You can get restaurant food delivered to the house. These deliveries are safe. But groceries you bring back to your house have to be decontaminated outside for 3 hours including frozen pizza.

19. You can't see your older mother or grandmother, but they can take a taxi and meet an older taxi driver.

20. You are safe if you maintain the safe social distance when out but you can’t go out with friends or strangers at the safe social distance.

21. The virus remains active on different surfaces for two hours ... or four hours...or six hours... I mean days, not hours. But it needs a damp environment. Or a cold environment that is warm and dry... in the air, as long as the air is not plastic.

22. Schools are closed so you need to home educate your children, unless you can send them to school because you’re not at home. If you are at home you can home educate your children using various portals and virtual class rooms, unless you have poor internet, or more than one child and only one computer, or you are working from home. Baking cakes can be considered maths, science or art. If you are home educating you can include household chores within their education. If you are home educating you can start drinking at 10am.

23. If you are not home educating children you can also start drinking at 10am.

24. The number of corona related deaths will be announced daily but we don't know how many people are infected as they are only testing those who are almost dead to find out if that's what they will die of. The people who die of corona who aren’t counted, won’t or will be counted but maybe not.

25. We should stay in locked down until the virus stops infecting people but it will only stop infecting people if we all get infected so it’s important we get infected and some don’t get infected.

26. You can join your neighbours for a street party and turn your music up for an outside disco and your neighbours won’t call the police. People in another street are allowed to call the police about your music whilst also having a party which you are allowed to call the police about.

27. No business will go down due to Coronavirus except those businesses that will go down due to Coronavirus.

Hope that makes things clearer for you?

[Jareth]

16 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm sure there was something in a bolitics thread a few years ago where someone came up with a VT cabinet.

@snowychap for minister of potatoes. 

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

we will reach a point where we have to move on with an acceptable rate of people dying (whatever that acceptable rate may be).

I'd change that wording. I's say that it's not about "acceptable". It's about the context - without a vaccine or a cure-all then the virus has its native death rate - an inherent property of the virus. So the "acceptability" is really about reducing, by human measures, to the minimum possible, the avoidable deaths. Clearly if no restrictions are put in place, in the UK, then the data shows the spread would be rapid an overwhelm the NHS, and care homes etc. and because of being overwhelmed many people would die avoidably, through inability to treat them. The same is the case with PPE - lack of PPE causes avoidable deaths. As we learn more about what works with treatment and what doesn't, we will also learn how to avoid deaths. Ditto lockdown restrictions - when to impose, when to lift and the impact that has. We need to learn from other countries and what they do, what works, what doesn't. Apps, drugs, travel all the rest. And when we (or anyone) gets something right, or wrong - share those lessons immediately and openly. Not just with Governments, but with the populations.

Edit - so it's not about plucking out a random or semi-random "acceptable" figure, it's about stopping avoidable deaths - things we do that make it worse than it need be.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

I saw a Tweet that said something along the lines of we should allow those out first who think the lockdown is having a negative effect or is not worthwhile (because the economy/people would have died anyway/the virus isn’t that bad/we need herd immunity). Let them be the first to be released so they can show everyone how sure they are about their beliefs. 

[Jareth]

29 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I think it’s likely to be (ironically) an eventuality of the lockdown itself but I’m straying more and more into conspiracy thinking around all of this.

Something seems really off about it all and I don’t quite know why, that we have the most inept and deceitful government in place in history doesn’t help of course.

Whether the measures have been too extreme or not extreme enough we’ll likely never know, but the reality is that it cannot continue indefinitely because the costs (fiscally and otherwise) are just not sustainable, people’s health beyond COVID-19 (both mental and physical) cannot be sustained indefinitely, the economy cannot be sustained indefinitely, the government can’t prop up the economy indefinitely etc etc.

 

The whole situ is totally messed up, it’s crazy and I don’t have the answers, I’m not even sure what the questions should be to be honest but as I pointed out weeks ago, we will reach a point where we have to move on with an acceptable rate of people dying (whatever that acceptable rate may be).

Yer gotta go with yer gut. Actual Tories voted in the majority for a government of national unity 2 weeks ago - they love Boris but accept his frailities - he has been very unlucky to coincide with a pandemic - honestly he has - it's a morality tail. But we are where we are, so I suggest to the governing party, to put of all people Jeremy Hunt in charge - that guy gets it - and I'm being charitable. 

[jackbauer24]

I thank those who are willing to discuss but, funnily enough, I'm loving the lockdown on a personal level so even if this was forever it wouldn't bother me personally! I still believe there is a lack of critical thinking taking place and we are making judgements out of fear. I hope I'm right (as mine is a more optimistic view) but can accept that I may not be. However i encourage all to look more closely at data - there's a good article that is updated on the BBC that tries to explain figures which broadly aligns to my thinking.

We won't know, and possibly never will definitively, the right or wrong way to deal with this. However I believe Sweden are approaching this in a more measured way and we'll get an indication of how succesful or not that is only months/years after this has largely passed. 

[Jareth]

Just now, jackbauer24 said:

We won't know, and possibly never will definitively, the right or wrong way to deal with this. 

Strongly disagree

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

I saw a Tweet that said something along the lines of we should allow those out first who think the lockdown is having a negative effect or is not worthwhile (because the economy/people would have died anyway/the virus isn’t that bad/we need herd immunity). Let them be the first to be released so they can show everyone how sure they are about their beliefs. 

That's about as dumb (from the tweeter) as it gets. Let the really irresponsible "what virus" folk spread it to everyone else. Sure some of them will die, but most won't. They'll be the ones causing the responsible folk to catch it and die. If I was picking a group to "let out" it would be those who could be relied upon NOT to be carelss, but to observe seperation rules, to follow the expert guidance.

[jackbauer24]

3 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

I saw a Tweet that said something along the lines of we should allow those out first who think the lockdown is having a negative effect or is not worthwhile (because the economy/people would have died anyway/the virus isn’t that bad/we need herd immunity). Let them be the first to be released so they can show everyone how sure they are about their beliefs. 

Funnily enough I practice what I preach and don't dismiss anyine who has a different view or is worried. I am am a teacher and reguarly go in to care for children of keyworkers if this means ines who are vulnerable or simply worried about it all don't have to. I'm not going around licking door handles but I happily 'put myself on the line' because I think the risk to me/my family is tiny compared to the help I give those children.