| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:17 - Oct 12 with 1204 views | CrayonKing |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:10 - Oct 12 by BlueBadger |
It's also worth pointing out that a 1% mortality rate is ten times that of flu. Which we presently vaccinate for.
The 'long term disability risk' on the other hand, is running at around 10%.
Doing f*ck all about it isn't really an option. |
Also worth pointing out that the "ever-improving hospital outcomes" don't apply if there's no space left in the hospitals and/or there are shortages of drugs due to everybody getting it at the same time |  | |  |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:24 - Oct 12 with 1192 views | Guthrum |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:02 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
So you actually think it is a reasonable option to lock people up for two weeks ( in most cases against their will ) because they MIGHT have a virus? What is wrong with voluntary self isolation at home? Aren't people by and large following this guideline?
Besides this would just be a horrible infringement on freedoms and just doesn't work on a number of levels. We know now that the PCR test is not 100% accurate and can pick up old or 'dead' viral fragments, as well as generate false positives.
It has now also been estimated that in excess of 80% of people who test positive don't display any symptoms at all. So, in effect you will be forcibly detaining a number of people who either a) don't even have the virus b) had it so long ago they couldn't possibly still be infectious or c) don't present any symptoms so are not going to be a threat if they are following the guidelines.
Despite continuing hysteria from Government and our media it is a fact that the mortality rate of Covid-19 is getting smaller all the time and that the survival rate is well over 99% and we have ever improving treatment outcomes for those that do get hospitalised.
Any respiratory infection is and always has presented a danger to the small minority of the population that are in the high risk group, we have never before contemplated locking people away in detention centres to avert this risk. It's a ludicrous suggestion. |
Not displaying symptoms does not mean the carries isn't infectious. As I understand it, false positives are rare, much more so than false negatives.
To what extent are people following the guidelines? If Scottish MSPs feel it's reasonable to take long train journeys after diagnosis, how many people are "just nipping to the shops"? A purely voluntary scheme is full of holes. Home isolation only works if there are some sort of checks.
Mortality rates are not the only issue with Covid. There is incapacitation of swathes of the population in the event of an uncontrolled outbreak. Plus there is the matter of long-term after-effects experienced by sufferers - something which is only now being discovered.
With other respiratory diseases, we have vaccines and effective treatment methods. The vulnerable can be (at least partially) protected with the former. We do not have that for Covid as yet.
Now I agree that forcible quarantine is something of an OTT proposal and one which would, on many levels, be better avoided. But with numbers contiuing to rise, what alternative further steps can be taken to halt that trend? Otherwise, we fall back on mass lockdowns, which affect everybody, even the healthy. Or we give up and let the virus do its worst, probably leaving us shunned by the rest of the world. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:47 - Oct 12 with 1178 views | BlueBadger |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:17 - Oct 12 by CrayonKing |
Also worth pointing out that the "ever-improving hospital outcomes" don't apply if there's no space left in the hospitals and/or there are shortages of drugs due to everybody getting it at the same time |
Also, Covid is 'long' disease, even in the acute phase. Must people who intubated for severe illness tend to require around 5-7 days on a ventilator, with covid it's not been unusual, in my experience, for people to need 2-3 weeks and often more.
Plus, as you'd expect, the rehab following this will also require a longer hospital stay, as well. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:50 - Oct 12 with 1168 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:10 - Oct 12 by BlueBadger |
It's also worth pointing out that a 1% mortality rate is ten times that of flu. Which we presently vaccinate for.
The 'long term disability risk' on the other hand, is running at around 10%.
Doing f*ck all about it isn't really an option. |
I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest 'doing f*ck all about it' as an alternative option, i'm certain there is some middle ground to be found between those two rather extreme ends of the spectrum.
As for the mortality rate, it is not 1%. Taking current UK numbers you are looking at 0.07% and that is without questioning the inclusion of the large number of 'died with' cases that had other primary causes of death. Add in a large number of cases that have never been detected / reported and it is likely to be even lower. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:02]
|  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:55 - Oct 12 with 1163 views | DanTheMan |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:50 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest 'doing f*ck all about it' as an alternative option, i'm certain there is some middle ground to be found between those two rather extreme ends of the spectrum.
As for the mortality rate, it is not 1%. Taking current UK numbers you are looking at 0.07% and that is without questioning the inclusion of the large number of 'died with' cases that had other primary causes of death. Add in a large number of cases that have never been detected / reported and it is likely to be even lower. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:02]
|
There's been 42,825 deaths and ~604k cases.
42,825 / 604,000 is ~0.07. Which means it's 7%, not 0.07%.
EDIT: Apologies, I'm talking about survival rates as opposed to mortality rate, but I don't think a population based metric makes sense here when talking about lethality. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:07]
|  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:58 - Oct 12 with 1150 views | lowhouseblue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:55 - Oct 12 by DanTheMan |
There's been 42,825 deaths and ~604k cases.
42,825 / 604,000 is ~0.07. Which means it's 7%, not 0.07%.
EDIT: Apologies, I'm talking about survival rates as opposed to mortality rate, but I don't think a population based metric makes sense here when talking about lethality. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:07]
|
it's 0.07% of the whole population and 1% of the estimated total infections.
so both figures are correct but are measuring different things. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:59 - Oct 12 with 1151 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:17 - Oct 12 by CrayonKing |
Also worth pointing out that the "ever-improving hospital outcomes" don't apply if there's no space left in the hospitals and/or there are shortages of drugs due to everybody getting it at the same time |
There is no evidence that hospitals have run out of space and even if there was that still doesn't make it ok to forcibly detain people who test positive. And what happens if the quarantine facilities reach full capacity?
We have had previous severe winters where hospitals have been overwhelmed and at breaking point and nobody suggested locking people away for two weeks. People are seriously losing the ability of rational thought over this. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:03 - Oct 12 with 1139 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:58 - Oct 12 by lowhouseblue |
it's 0.07% of the whole population and 1% of the estimated total infections.
so both figures are correct but are measuring different things. |
I don't see what 0.07% of the whole population is showing though? Seems like a number entirely generated to downplay the current situation.
We don't measure any other mortality rate by the whole population, only by those who have confirmed cases of the disease so why is it being used here?
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:04 - Oct 12 with 1137 views | DanTheMan |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:58 - Oct 12 by lowhouseblue |
it's 0.07% of the whole population and 1% of the estimated total infections.
so both figures are correct but are measuring different things. |
You're right, got confused about which rate we were talking about.
Although kind of pointless talking about that mortality rate (vs. survival rate or whatever it is called) when the entire country has been in lockdown, as that massively skews a population based metric. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:05]
| |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:07 - Oct 12 with 1130 views | giant_stow |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:59 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
There is no evidence that hospitals have run out of space and even if there was that still doesn't make it ok to forcibly detain people who test positive. And what happens if the quarantine facilities reach full capacity?
We have had previous severe winters where hospitals have been overwhelmed and at breaking point and nobody suggested locking people away for two weeks. People are seriously losing the ability of rational thought over this. |
Not that I necessarily disagree with the gist of what you're saying about locking people up, there is evidence today of hospitals filling up quick:
"More people are in hospital with Covid than before lockdown in March, says NHS medical director Stephen Powis"
"NHS Nightingale hospitals put on stand-by in Manchester, Sunderland and Harrogate as UK Covid admissions rise"
both taken from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54505193 [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:07]
|  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:09 - Oct 12 with 1127 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:24 - Oct 12 by Guthrum |
Not displaying symptoms does not mean the carries isn't infectious. As I understand it, false positives are rare, much more so than false negatives.
To what extent are people following the guidelines? If Scottish MSPs feel it's reasonable to take long train journeys after diagnosis, how many people are "just nipping to the shops"? A purely voluntary scheme is full of holes. Home isolation only works if there are some sort of checks.
Mortality rates are not the only issue with Covid. There is incapacitation of swathes of the population in the event of an uncontrolled outbreak. Plus there is the matter of long-term after-effects experienced by sufferers - something which is only now being discovered.
With other respiratory diseases, we have vaccines and effective treatment methods. The vulnerable can be (at least partially) protected with the former. We do not have that for Covid as yet.
Now I agree that forcible quarantine is something of an OTT proposal and one which would, on many levels, be better avoided. But with numbers contiuing to rise, what alternative further steps can be taken to halt that trend? Otherwise, we fall back on mass lockdowns, which affect everybody, even the healthy. Or we give up and let the virus do its worst, probably leaving us shunned by the rest of the world. |
Well a proper functioning track & trace system would have helped. Either way I simply cannot see any justification for forced quarantine centres for a virus that really has minimal effect on the vast majority of the population.
Also I read recently that there are over 200 known respiratory viruses, the vast majority of which we don't have a vaccine for. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:10 - Oct 12 with 1122 views | DanTheMan |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:03 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
I don't see what 0.07% of the whole population is showing though? Seems like a number entirely generated to downplay the current situation.
We don't measure any other mortality rate by the whole population, only by those who have confirmed cases of the disease so why is it being used here?
SB |
I think we're all perhaps using different terminology here with very similar sounding names.
Yourself and I are probably talking about case or infection fatality rate vs mortality rate which is against a population (as far as I can tell). | |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:13 - Oct 12 with 1121 views | solomon |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 07:23 - Oct 12 by 26_Paz |
I know it wasn’t a prediction. Point I’m making is that measures we were already taking were avoiding the situation they described hence it can be quite difficult to understand why further measures are required. As others have said perhaps publishing some of this science, obviously with summaries for the 99.5% of people who are laymen on the subject, might help. |
It’s a bit like going to see your bank to apply for a loan armed with a lottery ticket for next weeks draw. |  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:16 - Oct 12 with 1117 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:04 - Oct 12 by DanTheMan |
You're right, got confused about which rate we were talking about.
Although kind of pointless talking about that mortality rate (vs. survival rate or whatever it is called) when the entire country has been in lockdown, as that massively skews a population based metric. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:05]
|
I take that point and the truth is we don't know the true mortality rate yet and likely will never have a truly accurate one due to differences in how countries report etc.
This rather detracts from my general point though which was an objection to forcibly detaining people in the name of a virus that overall has a quite low lethality and in most people doesn't even present any symptoms. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:19 - Oct 12 with 1116 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:10 - Oct 12 by DanTheMan |
I think we're all perhaps using different terminology here with very similar sounding names.
Yourself and I are probably talking about case or infection fatality rate vs mortality rate which is against a population (as far as I can tell). |
Ah yes.
Mortality Rate, CFR and IFR.
Mortality rate is deaths per 1000 of population within a unit of time (usually a year).
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:29 - Oct 12 with 1103 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:07 - Oct 12 by giant_stow |
Not that I necessarily disagree with the gist of what you're saying about locking people up, there is evidence today of hospitals filling up quick:
"More people are in hospital with Covid than before lockdown in March, says NHS medical director Stephen Powis"
"NHS Nightingale hospitals put on stand-by in Manchester, Sunderland and Harrogate as UK Covid admissions rise"
both taken from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54505193 [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 14:07]
|
On the face of it that is concerning granted, although I still stand by my point. I would like to see a bit more in terms of the numbers behind the headline as well. I know for a fact that as of last week Ipswich hospital had only 2 Covid-19 patients, although we know Suffolk is one of the least affected areas so obviously it would be a very different picture in Liverpool and Manchester etc. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:52 - Oct 12 with 1077 views | 26_Paz |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 12:31 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Quick to pick up on that whilst incredibly slow to answer anything else put to you.
What about the rest of the post?
SB |
Yes, more people are in hospital now than they were at the time of lockdown measure in March, that is true. However, there’s two points it should be remembered that:
1. These cases have built up over a much longer period of time, it’s not the explosion it was in March.
2. It’s more spread around the country this time, obviously there are some hotspots but previously it was more condensed. This means less chances of hospital services being overwhelmed.
Lock down was absolutely the right thing to do in March. Personally, I believe it’s a different situation this time. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:58 - Oct 12 with 1069 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:52 - Oct 12 by 26_Paz |
Yes, more people are in hospital now than they were at the time of lockdown measure in March, that is true. However, there’s two points it should be remembered that:
1. These cases have built up over a much longer period of time, it’s not the explosion it was in March.
2. It’s more spread around the country this time, obviously there are some hotspots but previously it was more condensed. This means less chances of hospital services being overwhelmed.
Lock down was absolutely the right thing to do in March. Personally, I believe it’s a different situation this time. |
Really not sure about this:
1). Provide some evidence for this please, the numbers in hospital were very low a month ago and have exploded in a similar way to March. Show your working.
2). Conversely it could mean even more hospitals will get overwhelmed and there will be more deaths and long-term issues. There is no evidence to show that any one area will be hit less hard because they were hit harder last time.
Because you don't want any lockdowns that take away your freedom you base your reasoning on that starting position.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:01 - Oct 12 with 1067 views | Enigma_Blue |
What is your view on the Great Barrington Declaration?
it is a proposal, written and signed at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts on 4 October 2020.
Infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach called Focused Protection.
https://gbdeclaration.org/
I am not advocating the proposal just wondered what the general view on it is?
It is apparently gaining great traction. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 15:03]
|  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:06 - Oct 12 with 1047 views | 26_Paz |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:58 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Really not sure about this:
1). Provide some evidence for this please, the numbers in hospital were very low a month ago and have exploded in a similar way to March. Show your working.
2). Conversely it could mean even more hospitals will get overwhelmed and there will be more deaths and long-term issues. There is no evidence to show that any one area will be hit less hard because they were hit harder last time.
Because you don't want any lockdowns that take away your freedom you base your reasoning on that starting position.
SB |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54505193
Posted at 14.33 on the BBC’s live feed. You’re welcome.
Can you show your working for your statement that nightingales are opening? Cheers. | |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:08 - Oct 12 with 1041 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:01 - Oct 12 by Enigma_Blue |
What is your view on the Great Barrington Declaration?
it is a proposal, written and signed at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts on 4 October 2020.
Infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach called Focused Protection.
https://gbdeclaration.org/
I am not advocating the proposal just wondered what the general view on it is?
It is apparently gaining great traction. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 15:03]
|
Of course it's gaining traction because people will support anything if it agrees with their predetermined view.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/09/climate-science-denial-network-behind-great-b
You'll find plenty of scientists at distinguished instutions who don't agree with it such as:
Dr Rupert Beale — Group Leader of Cell Biology at the Francis Crick Institute’s Infection Laboratory — described the Declaration’s idea that “we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population” as “wishful thinking”.
“It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible — so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine,” Dr Beale added. “Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:10 - Oct 12 with 1037 views | SpruceMoose |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:08 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Of course it's gaining traction because people will support anything if it agrees with their predetermined view.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/09/climate-science-denial-network-behind-great-b
You'll find plenty of scientists at distinguished instutions who don't agree with it such as:
Dr Rupert Beale — Group Leader of Cell Biology at the Francis Crick Institute’s Infection Laboratory — described the Declaration’s idea that “we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population” as “wishful thinking”.
“It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible — so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine,” Dr Beale added. “Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”
SB |
It's all part of a new trend where people like Paz are no longer ignoring all experts, they're now either picking and choosing which experts to believe and promote based on what backs up their thinking, or they're calling people experts when they're no such thing.
Unless Dr Jonny Bananas is indeed a medical expert and I'm mistaken.
[Post edited 12 Oct 2020 15:11]
|  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:11 - Oct 12 with 1025 views | jeera |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:13 - Oct 12 by solomon |
It’s a bit like going to see your bank to apply for a loan armed with a lottery ticket for next weeks draw. |
Yeah they're really funny about that. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:13 - Oct 12 with 1023 views | Pinewoodblue |
See the link you posted. Read the summary on the left. Prepared for opening, that takes time you don’t wait until you need to use the facilities to then get things in place |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
