| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) 21:57 - Oct 13 with 4663 views | HARRY10 |
After 42 Tories rebelled over lock down in Parliament tonight, some may be wondering if this is now the way forward -
"An international group of scientists has called on governments to overturn their coronavirus strategies and allow young and healthy people to return to normal life while protecting the most vulnerable.
The proposal, drawn up by three researchers but signed by many more, argues for letting the virus spread in low-risk groups in the hope of achieving “herd immunity”, where enough of the population is resistant to the virus to quell the pandemic.
" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/06/scientists-call-for-herd-immunity-
|  | | |  |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:36 - Oct 14 with 1017 views | HARRY10 |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:25 - Oct 14 by BlueBadger |
It should be pointed out that in the US, the concept of 'ceilings of treatment' is nowhere near as strong as it is in the UK.
So, it quite follows that very frail, very elderly(or both) people are admitted to ITU and subjected to treatments such as ventilation, invasive monitoring, etc etc, with a a very low chance of success, mainly because they(or their insurers) can pay rather than it being genuinely in their best interests.
I suspect it would have needed a pretty big 'sell', for example to get an obese 74 year old with a likely cognitive decline and recent stroke into an NHS ITU, compared to in the states. |
eh ?
Basically in the US if you can't pay you are not treated - whereas in the UK you will be treated, hence the concern about hospitals being overwhelmed.
So lock down is the one club answer to the need to reduce demand | | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:41 - Oct 14 with 1014 views | BlueBadger |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:36 - Oct 14 by HARRY10 |
eh ?
Basically in the US if you can't pay you are not treated - whereas in the UK you will be treated, hence the concern about hospitals being overwhelmed.
So lock down is the one club answer to the need to reduce demand |
There's a lot of wealthy older people there who can and *will* pay though, although, that said the US has a far greater ITU-bed-per-100,000 people ratio than we do over here(29.4 to 6.6, if you're interested). |  |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:49 - Oct 14 with 1010 views | HARRY10 |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:41 - Oct 14 by BlueBadger |
There's a lot of wealthy older people there who can and *will* pay though, although, that said the US has a far greater ITU-bed-per-100,000 people ratio than we do over here(29.4 to 6.6, if you're interested). |
I would check your figures (US) as they appear to be out by around ten times, and that is just for hospital beds, not ITU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_hospital_beds | | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:51 - Oct 14 with 1005 views | BigManBlue |
I've been away for a while - can someone explain to me what this "coronavirus" lark is all about? |  |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:56 - Oct 14 with 1000 views | Herbivore |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 00:00 - Oct 14 by Funge |
Has Levitt been 'catastrophically' wrong? Here's an article whereupon he admits he's made mistakes - which is surely the point, in line with my comments above - https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-michael-levitt-heres-what-i-got-wrong/
I've got no issue with that - scientists make mistakes, that's the fundamental premise of proposing hypotheses....
To reiterate, the premise of Barrington (as I see it) is that the short-term benefits afforded from lockdowns/ social restrictions, are far outweighed by the medium/ long-term effects to society. I'm personally in agreement with that.
How we fix that, whether the measures proposed by Barrington will work, or, indeed, whether this whole sorry mess is even fixable (thanks Hancock and Harding) is, of course debatable. |
There may be a bit of confirmation bias going on here, friend. |  |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:57 - Oct 14 with 1004 views | BlueBadger |
ITU beds to 100,000 is second column from the right. In between 'occupancy' and 'ventilators'.. | |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 13:01 - Oct 14 with 999 views | Herbivore |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:51 - Oct 14 by BigManBlue |
I've been away for a while - can someone explain to me what this "coronavirus" lark is all about? |
It's basically the flu. | |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 13:07 - Oct 14 with 997 views | SpruceMoose |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 08:56 - Oct 14 by MonkeyAlan |
Bit like the country you live in then. |
Exactly. Sadly I have no influence over that here (other than through community work and political fundraising) as I can't vote. |  |
| 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 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 13:25 - Oct 14 with 979 views | StokieBlue |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:03 - Oct 14 by urbanblue |
I disagree with this and don't think there are two distinct views at all in the two posts by both you and Funge.
Funge's post was not an endorsement of the Barrington Declaration. My upvote was for the extremely salient points that Scientific hypothesis should be considered and that a debate should always be had about whether continual lockdowns are the answer bearing in mind the enormous costs to the financial, physical and mental health of a lot of the population. I would add the future welfare of our children to that.
I totally agree. That was why the post got my upvote. It really is not as simplistic as to whether one is pro or anti lockdown. Surely you would agree with that. |
I agree with a lot of that, especially around the scientific debate (as I stated in my reply to him). The issue is their evidence doesn't really stack up to scrutiny as it's based on things which aren't proven (herd immunity through exposure for instance). There have been plenty of other posts with links to the issues.
I do also feel there is an increasing vocal minority for who it literally is as simple as pro/anti lockdown which is unfortunate.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 18:17 - Oct 14 with 935 views | Funge |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:19 - Oct 14 by HARRY10 |
"To reiterate, the premise of Barrington (as I see it) is that the short-term benefits afforded from lockdowns/ social restrictions, are far outweighed by the medium/ long-term effects to society. I'm personally in agreement with that. "
It should beggar belief that such nonsense is still being peddled.
The Uk is currently heading for hospitals being overwhelmed and unable to cope with infected people needing intensive care. To equate that with folk having to restrict their activities for a time borders on the dangerous.
Something has to be done now, to avoid that probability, as if that scenario is not avoided lord alone knows what panic and harm will be caused.
Lock down is about all we have to try and regulate the flow of patients requiring treatment. Because this is what it is really about - and the logistics and resources will determine what happens, not some theory distanced from any practicality |
It's not nonsense, is it?
It's an opinion; you can disagree with it, as, indeed, many others have done on this thread. (although you have form for getting pissy when someone disagrees with you; more fool me for indulging you. Anyway....)
The hospitality, arts and travel sectors are facing annihilation. That's not hyperbole, that's the reality. Anyone running an independent pub, or a small 'non-essential' business, or, say, an independent cinemas/ sports club - basically anything you might want to consider a luxury, as opposed to a necessity - is, most likely, going under this winter.
So notwithstanding the cultural impact of that (all those small businesses, many run as vocations, ceasing to exist; many also providing a focal social point for the people and communities who visit them), you have the associated human cost - people unable to pay mortgages/ credit cards, resulting in house repossessions/ increased homelessness, and so forth, with the clear and obvious impact this will have upon mental health - increased abuse/ suicide/ drug dependency. This has already begun, and is going to get several-fold worse, as the prospect and subsequent impact of these repeated 'circuit-breakers' hit.
I struggle too with the idea that people are merely being asked to restrict their activities for 'a time' - this isuggestion that anyone having the temerity to query the official medical line given, is inherently selfish. What we have had to experience in the last 6 months is unlike anything that, as a species, we have ever had to experience before. The majority of us are coping, I suppose - but a significant minority are not. They're not necessarily selfish, per se, they're overwhelmed, exhausted and drained by it all.
I mean, we could all lockdown in our houses for the next year, being allowed out only for an hour a day, with no direct human contact (as most of us did in March/April) - reducing (but not, I suspect, eradicating COVID)- but what, exactly, would be left at the end of it? From an epidemiological perspective, this would be the correct thing to do - but clearly not from a sociological perspective.
Studying the 'youth', and labelling them as selfish - undoubtedly there are those who are young, who don't take COVID seriously - but guess what, when I was a teenager, I was, in the main, a self-centred nob too. That's kind of the whole crux of adolescence. Paying £9k to be locked in a pre-fabricated flat with 6 strangers, at what everyone in the generation above told you would be the best experience of your life, whilst the media howl outside at how indulgent you all are? Yeah, I'd probably stick a middle finger up at that too, particularly when my job prospects upon leaving Uni were as bad as any generation in 70 years....
I acknowledge that we must make sacrifices to live with COVID - the vast majority of the populace have done this. I acknowledge that many people have died thus far, and that many more will die still, and that this carbuncle of a government could have done a great deal more to prevent their deaths.
I think we could have done this differently. I think, going forwards, we can do this differently.
It's a fcking horrid mess. |  | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 18:19 - Oct 14 with 931 views | Funge |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:56 - Oct 14 by Herbivore |
There may be a bit of confirmation bias going on here, friend. |
That's fair.
I think we're pretty much all subject to confirmation bias on this though. | | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 11:32 - Oct 15 with 851 views | Harry_Palmer |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 08:52 - Oct 14 by Guthrum |
People get hot under the collar at suggestions we should lock up people who do have Covid for a couple of weeks. Surprised there is not more outrage at the idea of effectively forcible isolation of swathes of the population who do not (the elderly, the vulnerable and those with pre-existing conditions) - on an indefinite basis. |
The difference being of course that nobody is suggesting that the vulnerable groups should be forcibly locked up, only that they should have the option to shield made available to them as a choice with the relevant support in place. Of course a large number of these people will already be effectively shielding in care homes, we just need to look after them properly instead of letting the virus rip through them like earlier in the year . |  | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 11:49 - Oct 15 with 833 views | Herbivore |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 11:32 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
The difference being of course that nobody is suggesting that the vulnerable groups should be forcibly locked up, only that they should have the option to shield made available to them as a choice with the relevant support in place. Of course a large number of these people will already be effectively shielding in care homes, we just need to look after them properly instead of letting the virus rip through them like earlier in the year . |
It's not as simple as that though. Lots of people that need to shield live in their own homes and have carers coming into their home multiple times a day. Those carers visit multiple homes every day. Those carers are usually young and healthy and so don't need to shield. How do you ensure that carers don't become vectors of transmission to the vulnerable? That's just one example of why shielding the vulnerable is not as straightforward as it sounds. There are reasons why when the virus starts to spread amongst the younger, healthier population it invariably starts to spread amongst all age groups. | |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:02 - Oct 15 with 825 views | Pinewoodblue |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 18:17 - Oct 14 by Funge |
It's not nonsense, is it?
It's an opinion; you can disagree with it, as, indeed, many others have done on this thread. (although you have form for getting pissy when someone disagrees with you; more fool me for indulging you. Anyway....)
The hospitality, arts and travel sectors are facing annihilation. That's not hyperbole, that's the reality. Anyone running an independent pub, or a small 'non-essential' business, or, say, an independent cinemas/ sports club - basically anything you might want to consider a luxury, as opposed to a necessity - is, most likely, going under this winter.
So notwithstanding the cultural impact of that (all those small businesses, many run as vocations, ceasing to exist; many also providing a focal social point for the people and communities who visit them), you have the associated human cost - people unable to pay mortgages/ credit cards, resulting in house repossessions/ increased homelessness, and so forth, with the clear and obvious impact this will have upon mental health - increased abuse/ suicide/ drug dependency. This has already begun, and is going to get several-fold worse, as the prospect and subsequent impact of these repeated 'circuit-breakers' hit.
I struggle too with the idea that people are merely being asked to restrict their activities for 'a time' - this isuggestion that anyone having the temerity to query the official medical line given, is inherently selfish. What we have had to experience in the last 6 months is unlike anything that, as a species, we have ever had to experience before. The majority of us are coping, I suppose - but a significant minority are not. They're not necessarily selfish, per se, they're overwhelmed, exhausted and drained by it all.
I mean, we could all lockdown in our houses for the next year, being allowed out only for an hour a day, with no direct human contact (as most of us did in March/April) - reducing (but not, I suspect, eradicating COVID)- but what, exactly, would be left at the end of it? From an epidemiological perspective, this would be the correct thing to do - but clearly not from a sociological perspective.
Studying the 'youth', and labelling them as selfish - undoubtedly there are those who are young, who don't take COVID seriously - but guess what, when I was a teenager, I was, in the main, a self-centred nob too. That's kind of the whole crux of adolescence. Paying £9k to be locked in a pre-fabricated flat with 6 strangers, at what everyone in the generation above told you would be the best experience of your life, whilst the media howl outside at how indulgent you all are? Yeah, I'd probably stick a middle finger up at that too, particularly when my job prospects upon leaving Uni were as bad as any generation in 70 years....
I acknowledge that we must make sacrifices to live with COVID - the vast majority of the populace have done this. I acknowledge that many people have died thus far, and that many more will die still, and that this carbuncle of a government could have done a great deal more to prevent their deaths.
I think we could have done this differently. I think, going forwards, we can do this differently.
It's a fcking horrid mess. |
It is down to each of us to do what is necessary both with regards to the virus and also with regards to our financial wellbeing.
I know a number of people who work in the entertainment and arts that have taken” a proper job”, a quote from a musician, as it pays the mortgage. |  |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:46 - Oct 15 with 795 views | Harry_Palmer |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 11:49 - Oct 15 by Herbivore |
It's not as simple as that though. Lots of people that need to shield live in their own homes and have carers coming into their home multiple times a day. Those carers visit multiple homes every day. Those carers are usually young and healthy and so don't need to shield. How do you ensure that carers don't become vectors of transmission to the vulnerable? That's just one example of why shielding the vulnerable is not as straightforward as it sounds. There are reasons why when the virus starts to spread amongst the younger, healthier population it invariably starts to spread amongst all age groups. |
Fair point of course but it is never going to be simple, we wouldn't be in the mess we are if it was. You could of course put in special protection measures to ensure the risk of transmission from carers is minimised as much as possible but ultimately you cannot hide everybody away from a virus 100%. For me it is about damage limitation and more overall damage is being done by continuing to restrict and lock down society than will ever be done by a virus. | | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:48 - Oct 15 with 792 views | Herbivore |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:46 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
Fair point of course but it is never going to be simple, we wouldn't be in the mess we are if it was. You could of course put in special protection measures to ensure the risk of transmission from carers is minimised as much as possible but ultimately you cannot hide everybody away from a virus 100%. For me it is about damage limitation and more overall damage is being done by continuing to restrict and lock down society than will ever be done by a virus. |
That last bit is pure conjecture though. And how do you even quantify that impact? And how do you weigh it against tens of thousands of deaths? | |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 13:02 - Oct 15 with 787 views | Harry_Palmer |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 12:48 - Oct 15 by Herbivore |
That last bit is pure conjecture though. And how do you even quantify that impact? And how do you weigh it against tens of thousands of deaths? |
At this moment you can't quantify the impact for certain but more and more people ( including highly qualified experts ) are estimating that the cure is going to be much worse than the disease.
Don't forget we only got into the business of lockdowns after following the ridiculous modelling of Neil Ferguson that has been shown to be out by several orders of magnitude. Prior to Covid, the recommendations for pandemic management across the scientific world ( including the WHO ) were roughly in line with what the GBD is suggesting. Now, even the WHO have done a u-turn ( again ) and are saying lockdown's are not beneficial. [Post edited 15 Oct 2020 16:04]
| | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 13:14 - Oct 15 with 785 views | Herbivore |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 13:02 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
At this moment you can't quantify the impact for certain but more and more people ( including highly qualified experts ) are estimating that the cure is going to be much worse than the disease.
Don't forget we only got into the business of lockdowns after following the ridiculous modelling of Neil Ferguson that has been shown to be out by several orders of magnitude. Prior to Covid, the recommendations for pandemic management across the scientific world ( including the WHO ) were roughly in line with what the GBD is suggesting. Now, even the WHO have done a u-turn ( again ) and are saying lockdown's are not beneficial. [Post edited 15 Oct 2020 16:04]
|
We got into lockdown because the virus was spreading like wildfire. And I'm not sure his numbers were that off, he predicted circa 400k deaths if no action was taken. No action would have meant more or less the entire country getting it. With a mortality rate of somewhere around 0.6% that would be 400k deaths if the virus ran through the population.
You say more and more people are coming round to restrictions being worse than Covid but it's still a relatively small number of people in the scientific community and many of the vocal backers aren't experts in relevant fields. Most epidemiologists and public health experts still think controlling the virus through restrictions is the best way to minimise the impact of the virus. | |
| |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 14:18 - Oct 15 with 765 views | Harry_Palmer |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 13:14 - Oct 15 by Herbivore |
We got into lockdown because the virus was spreading like wildfire. And I'm not sure his numbers were that off, he predicted circa 400k deaths if no action was taken. No action would have meant more or less the entire country getting it. With a mortality rate of somewhere around 0.6% that would be 400k deaths if the virus ran through the population.
You say more and more people are coming round to restrictions being worse than Covid but it's still a relatively small number of people in the scientific community and many of the vocal backers aren't experts in relevant fields. Most epidemiologists and public health experts still think controlling the virus through restrictions is the best way to minimise the impact of the virus. |
He predicted 510'000 deaths in the UK. The same modelling also forecast over 100'000 deaths in Sweden if they didn't lock down, they didn't, and at under 6000 deaths are not even close to his estimate. He was using a 13 year old coding model that was not even suitable for a coronavirus. That his predictions were miles out has been pretty much widely accepted, it became obvious even around May time as per the article below. I'm not sure why you would even try to dispute it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8327641/Coronavirus-modelling-Professor
Why he was even considered to be an 'expert' whose advise should be trusted by our Government in the first place is the real question based on his track record.
"Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K."
Stokie and Spruce, you might want to at least consider before you hand automatic upvotes out as it looks like clear confirmation bias in favour of certain posters and against others rather than being based on the actual evidence.. | | | |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 20:00 - Oct 15 with 720 views | Herbivore |
| the Great Barrington declaration (covid19) on 14:18 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
He predicted 510'000 deaths in the UK. The same modelling also forecast over 100'000 deaths in Sweden if they didn't lock down, they didn't, and at under 6000 deaths are not even close to his estimate. He was using a 13 year old coding model that was not even suitable for a coronavirus. That his predictions were miles out has been pretty much widely accepted, it became obvious even around May time as per the article below. I'm not sure why you would even try to dispute it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8327641/Coronavirus-modelling-Professor
Why he was even considered to be an 'expert' whose advise should be trusted by our Government in the first place is the real question based on his track record.
"Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K."
Stokie and Spruce, you might want to at least consider before you hand automatic upvotes out as it looks like clear confirmation bias in favour of certain posters and against others rather than being based on the actual evidence.. |
Do you have a link that's not from the Mail? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
