Generic Virus Thread

[Jareth]

Controversial revision of an opinion - Hatt Mancock hits his 100k tests target by end of month and I'll start to trust the guy. He's always been an object of fascination, whether its standing too close to women in social media interviews, or the Christmas card he sent his constituents of him and his dog - I have never liked the way he speaks, or his phoney manner - but this crisis appears to have matured him. Or maybe it's just that the rest are so insanely shite that by default he looks better. At the moment though he is about the only senior minister trying not to prioritise the economy over saving lives. 

[snowychap]

47 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Okay, how is that any different? 

Therein lies the problem.

You seem not to be getting the difference between saying that there's overlap between the groups at risk of death from coronavirus and death due to other reasons and saying that those who died would have died anyway (with whatever qualifier people deign to add - fair chunk/largely, for example).

Edited April 26, 2020 by snowychap
missed out the 'be'

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

If you have a large bomb heading to the ground and you can’t stop it from hitting the ground but you have two options, you can either divert it into a school packed with hundreds of children or a retirement home full of old and in some cases, unwell people, what are you going to do? 
 

Now I’m not saying that’s an analogy of what’s actually happened but I’ll wager that pretty much everyone would send that bomb into the retirement home so we are able to prioritise life when we have to.

And what if one of those children grows up to be a mass-murdering authoritarian responsible for the deaths of millions?

The Trolley problem gets very complicated very quickly when you actually begin to think about it.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I agree with this post and excess deaths is the only way to get a handle on what is actually going on. However the bit in bold leads to an interesting discussion point in that excess fear of the virus can actually result in excess deaths that otherwise may not have occurred had the pandemic been treated differently by governments and the media. For example, I suspect people here in Sweden are not as fearful of going into a hospital if they need it compared with someone in the U.K.  

Yes, this is true. I have heard anecdotal evidence of people with extremely fast emergency room visits as there are almost no patients there. We also have data on the numbers of cancer screenings being carried out, which seems to be substantially down on normal years. It's a difficult balancing act.

[blandy]

53 minutes ago, snowychap said:

What 'conversation' do you want to have?

What point do you want to be discussed?

It seems that people want to 'say something', throw a bit of a grenade in to the thread, claim that they're not actually saying what they are saying and then hide behind this 'it should be possible to have a conversation' bollocks.

I'll have a go. It might be a rubbish one (as usual, but still...)

There is possibly (definitely) more than one conversation to be had. The first conversation (for me) is the one I've joined about how it essential to protect everyone, most definitely including the more vulnerable and that it would be repulsive not to, and that the lockdown is and was absolutely critical (and imposed too late). That's the protecting people in the here and now conversation.

A second conversation (for me) revolves around analysing the data. It's not an optimal set of data, there are gaps and holes. But the science and analysis of the data is the thing that reveals what we know about the spread and effect of the virus, and how our measures (and those of other nations)  affect that. At this point, in this conversation, understanding the impact of those measures includes a need to understand which people are the worst affected by both the virus, and by the measures taken - these people can then have extra protection focused on them, and those least affected or unaffected, can potentially have their protection measures eased or redirected - to move the help to where it's most needed. So for example if it were to turn out that one group was more badly affected, then they could be the first to get the [when it's discovered] a new vaccine, or drug, or could have people assigned to individually look after them or whatever hypothetical measures science might come up with - that could all be debated and a way forward found. These people, these vulnerable ones with existing conditions and the elderly - these are (among) the ones being called "would have died anyway". That convo, for me is nothing to do with morality (though it is founded on it, to an extent) and is to do with data processing and analysis. The more we understand the more we can do. If (and this isn't directed at you) people shout down (those amongst the public) wanting to get their minds round the situation and willing to ask questions (sometimes clumsily, sometimes based on misinformation or misunderstanding, sure), rather than letting the question be asked, engaged with and answered, then that would be a shame. One of these clumsy questions I've seen asked is along the lines of "should we go the herd immunity route, or should we go the lockdown route?". I know my answer was lockdown. But what if the data starts to show that lockdown ultimately results in more deaths overall? (I'm not saying out definitely will or won't). At that point it would be better if the questions around that route ha ben asked, answered and the answers explained, rather than have a bunch of people saying "I asked about that, but was just shouted down and called uncaring. Who's uncaring now - many more people have died than otherwise would have because people like me were ignored" 

At some point if the stats start to show that the number of "people who would have died anyway" being protected, is fewer than "people who wouldn't have died, but did die as a consequence of lockdown" then it needs to be understood so as to adjust measures being taken. The "wouldn't have died" category includes cancer victims, people with mental health struggles, domestic violence victims, elderly folk in isolation who need help of one sort or another, but are ignored...etc.

All of the above does of course assume people are rational, open, clear of thinking and willing to discuss. Sadly we're not like that as often as we'd like.

 

[Stevo985]

36 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

See my response to Snowy.

Look, I didn’t kick this off and I’m kinda wishing I hadn’t bothered at all again now but all I actually did was respond to Terrytini saying he can’t believe we’re still talking about it, I’m simply asking why can’t we talk about it? 
 

All deaths are not the same in terms of tragedy, I’m sorry if that offends anyone but they’re not.

 

If you have a large bomb heading to the ground and you can’t stop it from hitting the ground but you have two options, you can either divert it into a school packed with hundreds of children or a retirement home full of old and in some cases, unwell people, what are you going to do? 
 

Now I’m not saying that’s an analogy of what’s actually happened but I’ll wager that pretty much everyone would send that bomb into the retirement home so we are able to prioritise life when we have to.

 

 

edit - I’ll add that maybe I’m just talking total shit, I don’t know, have woken up in a funny mood today.

Again I still don’t see your point. These deaths are less tragic than people who might not have died soon anyway. 
 

Ok. I think we all know that covid killing a 95 year old man who might have died in 2 months anyway is less tragic than it killing a 13 year old boy. 
 

I don’t think you’re telling anyone anything they don’t know. 
 

I think terry’s point was he can’t believe we’re having the conversation with the implication that somehow those lives don’t matter. Which might not be what you’re saying now, but it’s certainly the implication that some of your previous posts and some other posters’ posts have given. 
 

 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

the implication that somehow those lives don’t matter. Which might not be what you’re saying now, but it’s certainly the implication that some of your previous posts and some other posters’ posts have given. 

Not to me. I haven't perceived anyone saying that. I may have missed posts that did, of course.  Ultimately it's a numbers game (horrible phrase I know). But knowing (as far as we can) the number which will die via one route vs another route is essential to pick the best route. But each route will contain individual tragedies. I haven't seen anyone on here dismiss those tragedies, though in the wider world many seem not to give a hoot (as you've said) about anyone other than themselves.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

I'll have a go.

This is rather missing the point.

The question isn't 'Are there conversations to be had?' (as suggested in the rest of your post there are many to be had and what they are will depend on many factors, not least a decent interpretation of data) but what conversation is apparently wanted by the people rolling out the they've just dodged dying of 'flu anyway line.

[bannedfromHandV]

31 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Therein lies the problem.

You seem not to getting the difference between saying that there's overlap between the groups at risk of death from coronavirus and death due to other reasons and saying that those who died would have died anyway (with whatever qualifier people deign to add - fair chunk/largely, for example).

You’ve lost me mate, or I’ve managed to lose myself....

[bannedfromHandV]

15 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Again I still don’t see your point. These deaths are less tragic than people who might not have died soon anyway. 
 

Ok. I think we all know that covid killing a 95 year old man who might have died in 2 months anyway is less tragic than it killing a 13 year old boy. 
 

I don’t think you’re telling anyone anything they don’t know. 
 

I think terry’s point was he can’t believe we’re having the conversation with the implication that somehow those lives don’t matter. Which might not be what you’re saying now, but it’s certainly the implication that some of your previous posts and some other posters’ posts have given. 
 

 

But then this is the issue isn’t it Stevo?

As soon as anyone dares to stray into this territory they’re immediately shut down as being callous and devoid of emotion.

I don’t think anyone has ever said that those lives don’t matter but people like to add that implication so that the entire conversation is devalued.

Like many of you I’m sure, I’ve seen cancer (for example) up close and personal, I’ve seen it eat away at someone over a period of time reducing them to barely even a shadow of their former selves, i was present when it overcame that person and they passed, it’s an absolutely horrific process to go through so if and it’s a massive if (hence what I see as ‘the conversation’), 20% of the people who’ve perished would have done so in the coming months regardless then it becomes less of a tragedy for that section.

Its all totally philosophical anyway as we will never get a true grasp on how that all fits into the wider scenario.

All we know is a heck of a lot of people have died, and I don’t think anyone is attempting to gloss over that or trivialise it in its entirety.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

This is rather missing the point.

The question isn't 'Are there conversations to be had?' (as suggested in the rest of your post there are many to be had and what they are will depend on many factors, not least a decent interpretation of data) but what conversation is apparently wanted by the people rolling out the they've just dodged dying of 'flu anyway line.

Maybe, maybe not. it's all in the apparently isn't it? and what is apparent to you or I is seemingly different (which is good) -  I took their motive to be about:

 "this group of people are not long for this world and cruel as it may sound, are the measures being taken actually going to end up causing more suffering and death overall?

or

"I am curious to know how many people are dying as a consequence of the lockdown vs how many are being saved because of it"

That might be underpinned by something as low as "I wanna go to the pub, why can't I, just because some old people?" or it might be rather more self aware than that.

[DCJonah]

People claim they want to have an adult conversation about something when in reality it looks like they just want attention, which is pretty far removed from an adult conversation.

Because as @Stevo985 mentioned, none of them seem to add what the point is. Do they disagree with the lockdown? Do they think the virus isn't as bad as the world makes out? Do they think everything should just carry on as normal? 

Nothing gets added. Its just a passing comment to seem to want to get a rise out of people. And then if people show emotions in regards to the deaths of thousands of people they're somehow deemed to be less of an adult or as hilariously put 'think of the children brigade' 

As if caring about people is worthy of mockery. 

Like I said, its as far removed from an adult conversation as it can get really. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

none of them seem to add what the point is. Do they disagree with the lockdown? Do they think the virus isn't as bad as the world makes out? Do they think everything should just carry on as normal? 

Some disagree wit the lockdown, some want to understand the balance of arguments between lockdown vs no lockdown, some think the virus is not as bad as made out, some want "normal" some want to understand if something a bit less abnormal would be better, some want to understand if a more strict lockdown is necessary, some are lost amongst all the coverage and want clarity. It's not ideal to tell them they are just looking for attention. Some of the questions are those being played out in Sweden between politicians and scientists.

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Maybe, maybe not. it's all in the apparently isn't it? and what is apparent to you or I is seemingly different (which is good) -  I took their motive to be about

What point is there for me to consider your musings on the motives or requirements of others?

Actually, scratch that - there's a danger here and that is that people who haven't given an answer just take one of your reasonable musings because it sounds acceptable even if it doesn't actually represent what they thought or meant.

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by snowychap
Edited out a snappy bit.

[DCJonah]

Guardian reporting that 2 members of SAGE felt it was inappropriate that Cummings was part of the meetings. 

Wonder if some will still defend it?

You've got Tory Mps and now members of SAGE all saying it shouldn't have happened. Let's see if any transparency comes out?

To me its looking more likely that these evil words removed, that were proudly putting economy before lives in February, have influenced the science that they innocently claimed they were just following. 

 

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But then this is the issue isn’t it Stevo?

As soon as anyone dares to stray into this territory they’re immediately shut down as being callous and devoid of emotion.

 

But why are you straying into that territory? I’m not saying you shouldn’t. There’s probably very valid points to be made. But what is it?

The only real point I see is the death toll doesn’t quite show the whole picture because some of those people would likely have died this year anyway. 
 

Fine. That’s a perfectly valid point and one that’s been made before. If that’s the only point being made then I’m not sure why it’s being made again and again. 
 

If there’s some other point beyond that then that’s what I’m asking. What is the point being made if it’s not that?

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

Public opinion heading south on how government have handled the crisis - is it me or does it appear to correlate with frustration at being in lockdown and slim chances of exiting it - rather than any reaction to thousands of unnecessary deaths every day? 

BBC news just did quite a piece about how the Government will start to ease out of lockdown.  Pressure is certainly starting to build. 

Awful use of language I felt from one of the correspondents who called the stay at home orders a "rather blunt instrument" 

I wouldn't consider orders which have almost certainly saved the lives of probably hundreds of thousands of people as "blunt" 

However it definitely shows a shifting of attitude from the press, it's obviously going to be the next big story. 

[Stevo985]

11 hours ago, LakotaDakota said:

1 month ago (20th march) the total deaths this year in England/Wales were just under 5,000 down on the 5 year average, The graph above seems to suggest that a fair amount of this is down to flu deaths being significantly lower than average most weeks. Is the thought that Covid has killed many of these people that would usually (going on the same average figures you keep using to argue your case) die from flu really that wild of a theory?

This is the post from last night I’m referring to. What’s the point being made here?

Some people who haven’t been killed by seasonal flu MIGHT have now been killed by coronavirus. 
 

ok. So what? What’s the point? What are you suggesting?

[bannedfromHandV]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Again, why the response? What point is there for me to consider your musings on the motives or requirements of others?

Actually, scratch that - there's a danger here and that is that people who haven't given an answer just take one of your reasonable musings because it sounds acceptable even if it doesn't actually represent what they thought or meant.

 

Snowy, it’s a culmination of all of those things or at least a combination of some plus whatever is personal to each of us.

But you know that already.

[snowychap]

Just now, bannedfromHandV said:

Snowy, it’s a culmination of all of those things or at least a combination of some plus whatever is personal to each of us.

But you know that already.

Ha ha ha.

Yep, there we have it. Right on cue.