| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:13 - Oct 12 with 2392 views | bluelagos |
| 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]
|
Reading some of the medical experts responses I think the GBD falls down on a few aspects, namely
1. The assumption that you can easily isolate vulnerable people isn't based on reality. E.g. Many families live with a vulnerable person in the house rather than households being all full of vulnerable people.
2. The issue of long CV isn't addressed, namely allowing CV to take its course would risk many healthy people contracting long term term ill effects from CV
3. We don't actually know everyone who is vulnerable. Many people may have undiagnosed underlieing health issues and so we risk many deaths either way.
So whilst the GBD may sound like a reasonable position, it is not based on a realistic understanding of how we actually live our lives. It is therefore not a realistic option. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 15:14]
|  |
|  |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:14 - Oct 12 with 2386 views | StokieBlue |
I guess it depends on your definition of "opening". If opening means there are now people there getting ready to take patients then they are opening:
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/nightingale-hospital-sunder
Fair enough - I hadn't seen that post on the news feed. However we are early in the new rises, lets see how things are in a few weeks given the growth we are seeing. I certainly don't think it supports your position of opening things up.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:18 - Oct 12 with 2362 views | 26_Paz |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:14 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
I guess it depends on your definition of "opening". If opening means there are now people there getting ready to take patients then they are opening:
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/nightingale-hospital-sunder
Fair enough - I hadn't seen that post on the news feed. However we are early in the new rises, lets see how things are in a few weeks given the growth we are seeing. I certainly don't think it supports your position of opening things up.
SB |
Yeah, fair point, the fact they even need preparing is a bit worrying.
Given some of the stuff that’s come out today I think opening up may be a bit optimistic! I just hope things stay relatively as they are in areas where cases and hospitalisations are currently low. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:56 - Oct 12 with 2337 views | Enigma_Blue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:13 - Oct 12 by bluelagos |
Reading some of the medical experts responses I think the GBD falls down on a few aspects, namely
1. The assumption that you can easily isolate vulnerable people isn't based on reality. E.g. Many families live with a vulnerable person in the house rather than households being all full of vulnerable people.
2. The issue of long CV isn't addressed, namely allowing CV to take its course would risk many healthy people contracting long term term ill effects from CV
3. We don't actually know everyone who is vulnerable. Many people may have undiagnosed underlieing health issues and so we risk many deaths either way.
So whilst the GBD may sound like a reasonable position, it is not based on a realistic understanding of how we actually live our lives. It is therefore not a realistic option. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 15:14]
|
You make some very valid points. One of the biggest critics Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves, stated that since around fifty percent of the United States population is vulnerable, those most likely to experience severe illness cannot simply be separated out from the rest of society.
However many leading scientists have advocated lockdown measure in the belief that it would dramatically reduced the infection rate but this isn't always the case. It is becoming increasingly evident that the reduction the infection rate only last as long as the restrictive measures are in place. Once lifted, the virus simply resurges, as has been demonstrated by countries such as Peru, which initially implemented one of the world’s most extreme lockdowns and now has one of the worst outbreaks.
Maybe perhaps some portion of the vast resources that societies are expending to lock down could be used towards Focused Protection.
The trouble with Lockdowns is the affect it can have on the wider population.
A recent Oxfam report estimated that 130 million more people will be pushed to the brink of starvation due to supply chain disruptions resulting from lockdowns around the world.
https://time.com/5864803/oxfam-hunger-covid-19/
Also mental health is deteriorating, child and domestic abuse are increasing; and children, especially those who come from families without means, are falling behind in school. Many business are closing for good meaning financial hardship for owners and employees.
It is a difficult predicament Government's are facing round the the globe until an effective vaccine is produced. Focused Protection may not be feasible but Lockdowns aren't necessarily the answer either. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 15:57]
|  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 16:47 - Oct 12 with 2304 views | BlueBadger |
| 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. |
We've been at January-level capacity since early August at [redacted]. A surge will be catastrophic. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 16:55 - Oct 12 with 2285 views | 26_Paz |
Thinking about it this 3 tiers things makes a lot more sense than just random rules in random places. Should have been in place from when the original lock down was eased. | |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 17:38 - Oct 12 with 2258 views | Guthrum |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:09 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
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. |
Agree about track and trace. That was a missed opportunity which is partly responsible for the present crisis. Problem is what to do going forwards.
It's not about the effect it has on you, but spreading to others - including the more vulnerable.
The majority of those respiratory viruses are either largely harmless (e.g the various common colds) or are very rare. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 17:41 - Oct 12 with 2250 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:09 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
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. |
"Also I read recently that there are over 200 known respiratory viruses, the vast majority of which we don't have a vaccine for."
Can I ask what the point of this sentence is if it's not to muddy the waters?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 17:48 - Oct 12 with 2239 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 17:41 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
"Also I read recently that there are over 200 known respiratory viruses, the vast majority of which we don't have a vaccine for."
Can I ask what the point of this sentence is if it's not to muddy the waters?
SB |
He made it up. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 17:49 - Oct 12 with 2243 views | wkj |
I must admit, I was forced to take more chances than I would have liked thanks to "progress" as it were. The difference between then and now is that now the government are being forced take a tougher measure because A. Their initial response was far too slow and B. They're relaxing plan was awful.
The going out to eat scheme was an utter shambles unfortunately, and while that scheme can't be blamed for the uptick in infections, it sent a message to many that normal life is just around the corner.
I do not see the new rules working at all unfortunately, as more and more people are rejecting the concept of lockdown and restrictions, with some even refusing to acknowledge that Covid 19 exists. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 18:24 - Oct 12 with 2223 views | Trequartista |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 15:10 - Oct 12 by SpruceMoose |
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]
|
"picking and choosing which experts to believe and promote based on what backs up their thinking"
exactly what you both have done yourselves, just a different set of experts surely? |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 18:26 - Oct 12 with 2218 views | Trequartista |
| 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]
|
Like others, I think the shielding the vulnerable bit sounds easier said than done, but i'm keeping an open mind.
I'm wondering whether we have already gained a level of herd immunity in London and Birmingham given their relatively low level of infections in comparison to the North at the moment? | |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 18:43 - Oct 12 with 2199 views | 26_Paz |
Thanks mate, yeah, I’ve see they are getting ready whilst not actually having patients yet ... we were both right! | |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:02 - Oct 12 with 2183 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 17:38 - Oct 12 by Guthrum |
Agree about track and trace. That was a missed opportunity which is partly responsible for the present crisis. Problem is what to do going forwards.
It's not about the effect it has on you, but spreading to others - including the more vulnerable.
The majority of those respiratory viruses are either largely harmless (e.g the various common colds) or are very rare. |
Add to your last sentence "or nothing like as contagious". |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:36 - Oct 12 with 2161 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:19 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Ah yes.
Mortality Rate, CFR and IFR.
Mortality rate is deaths per 1000 of population within a unit of time (usually a year).
SB |
Regarding the entire world, roughly speaking, what is the IFR for Covid-19? | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:48 - Oct 12 with 2150 views | SpruceMoose |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 18:24 - Oct 12 by Trequartista |
"picking and choosing which experts to believe and promote based on what backs up their thinking"
exactly what you both have done yourselves, just a different set of experts surely? |
If someone was going to misunderstand my post it was bound to be you, the forum's own Eric Trump. |  |
| 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 19:49 - Oct 12 with 2139 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:36 - Oct 12 by Bluesquid |
Regarding the entire world, roughly speaking, what is the IFR for Covid-19? |
Why don't you tell me?
I am sure it's on your troll "fact" sheet open in notepad and an easy cut and paste.
You can then proceed to push yet another flu based false equivalence.
SB [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 19:52]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:53 - Oct 12 with 2125 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 17:41 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
"Also I read recently that there are over 200 known respiratory viruses, the vast majority of which we don't have a vaccine for."
Can I ask what the point of this sentence is if it's not to muddy the waters?
SB |
well, I was responding to...
"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."
....by pointing out that for the majority we don't. and that includes other coronavirus's such as Sars & Mers. I'm not sure how pointing out a fact is muddying the waters, but hey ho. |  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:54 - Oct 12 with 2117 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:49 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Why don't you tell me?
I am sure it's on your troll "fact" sheet open in notepad and an easy cut and paste.
You can then proceed to push yet another flu based false equivalence.
SB [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 19:52]
|
Well from my understanding the IFR is roughly 0.14% which is about the same as the flu. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 20:06 - Oct 12 with 2103 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:53 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
well, I was responding to...
"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."
....by pointing out that for the majority we don't. and that includes other coronavirus's such as Sars & Mers. I'm not sure how pointing out a fact is muddying the waters, but hey ho. |
I asked if it was an attempt to muddy the waters, I didn't state that it was. However now you've clarified it looks even more like muddying the waters by trying to downplay one disease because others exist without factoring in the specifics of those diseases.
We don't have a vaccine for SARS or MERS because the research was stopped because the virus wasn't as contagious and ran it's own course due to various factors (contagiousness and lethality). It's not applicable in our current scenario so I am not sure why you are citing it?
Which other respiratory diseases do we not have vaccines for which have the ability for exponential growth and thus huge numbers of deaths like C19 has?
This is my issue, it's all very well citing other diseases but it's done without context and in a way that isn't really equivalent to the current situation. Perhaps I am wrong but that's how I view the posts.
SB [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 20:06]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 20:27 - Oct 12 with 2070 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 20:06 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
I asked if it was an attempt to muddy the waters, I didn't state that it was. However now you've clarified it looks even more like muddying the waters by trying to downplay one disease because others exist without factoring in the specifics of those diseases.
We don't have a vaccine for SARS or MERS because the research was stopped because the virus wasn't as contagious and ran it's own course due to various factors (contagiousness and lethality). It's not applicable in our current scenario so I am not sure why you are citing it?
Which other respiratory diseases do we not have vaccines for which have the ability for exponential growth and thus huge numbers of deaths like C19 has?
This is my issue, it's all very well citing other diseases but it's done without context and in a way that isn't really equivalent to the current situation. Perhaps I am wrong but that's how I view the posts.
SB [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 20:06]
|
I think you need to read the posts back again. I suggested the other day that you were twisting things to suit your position, perhaps that was a little unfair, maybe you are just reading certain posts in haste and not allowing enough time to fully consider the context.
The context was that Guthrum was suggesting locking people in quarantine centre's for 2 weeks as a genuine solution to the current situation. To my mind as somebody who places a high value on civil liberties that is simply unacceptable. Part of his reasoning was that we have vaccines and effective treatments for other respiratory illnesses. I simply pointed out that in actual fact for the majority, we don't.
You see I didn't even bring this into the discussion, I merely responded to something. no agenda, no trying to downplay anything, that's it really. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 20:39 - Oct 12 with 2060 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:49 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Why don't you tell me?
I am sure it's on your troll "fact" sheet open in notepad and an easy cut and paste.
You can then proceed to push yet another flu based false equivalence.
SB [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 19:52]
|
Well Stokie i actually think it is pretty positive news and we all need some encouraging news regarding this horrible virus.
We are basically talking about a 0.14% IFR for Covid which is roughly the same as the flu and if you cast your mind back to March it is over 24 times LOWER than the figure of 3.4% that the WHO stated back then.
It's over 24 times lower than feared, it's good news mate. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:01 - Oct 12 with 2039 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 20:39 - Oct 12 by Bluesquid |
Well Stokie i actually think it is pretty positive news and we all need some encouraging news regarding this horrible virus.
We are basically talking about a 0.14% IFR for Covid which is roughly the same as the flu and if you cast your mind back to March it is over 24 times LOWER than the figure of 3.4% that the WHO stated back then.
It's over 24 times lower than feared, it's good news mate. |
The problem here for many people is that to fully embrace this good news for what it is would mean that they would then have to accept that what our Government are doing is completely disproportionate to the threat posed. This then leads to the obvious question of why? Which in turn leads to the awkward position of having to consider that there might actually be some sort of alternative agenda at play and that could mean being linked to a conspiracy theory ( God forbid! ).
It's a lot safer at this point to put the blockers up and accuse the other poster of trying to 'downplay' things. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:08 - Oct 12 with 2027 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 20:39 - Oct 12 by Bluesquid |
Well Stokie i actually think it is pretty positive news and we all need some encouraging news regarding this horrible virus.
We are basically talking about a 0.14% IFR for Covid which is roughly the same as the flu and if you cast your mind back to March it is over 24 times LOWER than the figure of 3.4% that the WHO stated back then.
It's over 24 times lower than feared, it's good news mate. |
I'm sure the families of the 1.08m people who have thus far died will take great solace in your post.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
