|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 1, 2020 20:08:30 GMT
Well, scientists have been searching for a cure for coronavirus for as long as I've been alive and they haven't found one yet so what makes you think the next few months will be different? I'm human, I have to believe in something positive. Just because something has been in the past does not mean it will be so in the future. I truly believe that and that is why I will continue to support the lockdown fully. Right. But you do understand that the lockdown will cause huge increases in unemployment, home repossessions, domestic violence, depression and suicide, deaths from undiagnosed and untreated cancers, and lead to tens of thousands of doctors and nurses losing their jobs because there won't be the money to pay their wages if people aren't working and paying tax? You do understand that. right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 20:12:37 GMT
I'm human, I have to believe in something positive. Just because something has been in the past does not mean it will be so in the future. I truly believe that and that is why I will continue to support the lockdown fully. Right. But you do understand that the lockdown will cause huge increases in unemployment, home repossessions, domestic violence, depression and suicide, deaths from undiagnosed and untreated cancers, and lead to tens of thousands of doctors and nurses losing their jobs because there won't be the money to pay their wages if people aren't working and paying tax? You do understand that. right? Is that lockdown effects or virus effects?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 20:13:37 GMT
All this reminds me of the late 1980s when we were solemnly told by our televisions that "By the early 1990s, every family in the country will be touched by AIDS". Yes, I did actually hear those very words. There still is no vaccine for HIV We can also reduce the chance of getting it by abstaining from having sex or by using condoms so it is in our control. We can only reduce the chance of getting CV19 by isolation and have no control whether we get it or not. Sadly I lost 3 close friends to AIDS in the 1980's
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 1, 2020 20:20:58 GMT
All this reminds me of the late 1980s when we were solemnly told by our televisions that "By the early 1990s, every family in the country will be touched by AIDS". Yes, I did actually hear those very words. There still is no vaccine for HIV We can also reduce the chance of getting it by abstaining from having sex or by using condoms so it is in our control. We can only reduce the chance of getting CV19 by isolation and have no control whether we get it or not. Sadly I lost 3 close friends to AIDS in the 1980's There's sheer irony here in someone choosing Fat Freddy as his avatar applauding Government curtailment of civil liberty and effectively placing civilians under house arrest. I can only assume you chose the avatar at random without ever having read any of Gilbert Shel ton's counterculture comics.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 1, 2020 20:22:39 GMT
I'm human, I have to believe in something positive. Just because something has been in the past does not mean it will be so in the future. I truly believe that and that is why I will continue to support the lockdown fully. Right. But you do understand that the lockdown will cause huge increases in unemployment, home repossessions, domestic violence, d epression and suicide, deaths from undiagnosed and untreated cancers, and lead to tens of thousands of doctors and nurses losing their jobs because there won't be the money to pay their wages if people aren't working and paying tax? You do understand that. right? which will also occur if there is no health service because it has been totally overwhelmed by literally millions of covid 19 patients ..... problems supplying PPE with just the numbers at the moment ? nothing compared to what would be needed to protect NHS staff under those conditions (and the undertakers having to cope with half a million corpses in just a month or so) Unrestricted corona virus pandemic would be very very grim ........ your way or any other way will be a massive hit on society. It's not which is best .... it's which is the least worse. The majority of the world seems to have chosen one way and you and a tiny handfull another. You do understand that your way might have as catastrophic results as any other ? suppose there turns out to be no herd immunity ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 1, 2020 20:30:09 GMT
Right. But you do understand that the lockdown will cause huge increases in unemployment, home repossessions, domestic violence, d epression and suicide, deaths from undiagnosed and untreated cancers, and lead to tens of thousands of doctors and nurses losing their jobs because there won't be the money to pay their wages if people aren't working and paying tax? You do understand that. right? which will also occur if there is no health service because it has been totally overwhelmed by literally millions of covid 19 patients ..... Don't be so ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 1, 2020 20:38:51 GMT
which will also occur if there is no health service because it has been totally overwhelmed by literally millions of covid 19 patients ..... Don't be so ridiculous. You saw the maths in my earlier reply to you ....... with half a million deaths there will be literally millions of patients ....... grow up and do the arithmatic yourself 67 million population 70 to 80 % the required number for herd immunity ..... exponential rise in numbers if no control equals 30 or 40 million people catching it in a very short time. if only 10% get severe symptoms that's 3 or 4 million patients requiring hospitalisation ...... work it out yourself
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 20:58:45 GMT
The whole and only point of having a lockdown is to control the peak so that it is below the maximum capacity of the health service to manage. any more and the death toll rises due to the inability to give the best treatment. keeping the infection level going (but not exponential) delays and keeps the numbers manageable this is just a way of gaining time to develop treatments and hopefully a vaccine.while continuing allowing the virus to gradually build up (what is hoped to be) herd immunity All routes are just best guesses ..... there may be no treatment, no vaccine and no herd immunity ..... in which case the prospects are not very good for anyone locking the whole country down and making every arrival go into quarantine for two weeks (irrespective of nationality) would? might stop it getting into the country (remember illegal immigration) but you would have to do it for years if not decades and civilisation would not survive that OK we are not far from agreeing that the essential point of lockdown is to limit the R number - do you agree? Yes, but how are they working out the R number when they don't know how many people have caught it in the past and built up antibodies? Some estimates say 50% of the population have probably had the virus. If 50% of those who get the virus show no symptoms then that estimate may well prove correct. It also relies on random testing rather than just testing those who have been exposed in high risk situations. The real R number will probably be higher in densly populated areas like London but much lower in rural areas. The fact is that the data simply isn't good enough to draw any strong conclusions. We may never know how many people caught it by the end of the year unless a reliable antibody test can be produced and a good random sample of the population are tested. If they do come up with a vaccine (which may well come with it's own risks) then surely an antibody test should be used first to determine whether the person has already got the antibodies or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 21:04:00 GMT
OK we are not far from agreeing that the essential point of lockdown is to limit the R number - do you agree? Yes, but how are they working out the R number when they don't know how many people have caught it in the past and built up antibodies? Some estimates say 50% of the population have probably had the virus. If 50% of those who get the virus show no symptoms then that estimate may well prove correct. It also relies on random testing rather than just testing those who have been exposed in high risk situations. The real R number will probably be higher in densly populated areas like London but much lower in rural areas. The fact is that the data simply isn't good enough to draw any strong conclusions. We may never know how many people caught it by the end of the year unless a reliable antibody test can be produced and a good random sample of the population are tested. If they do come up with a vaccine (which may well come with it's own risks) then surely an antibody test should be used first to determine whether the person has already got the antibodies or not? Lots of 'ifs' here - not a great way to base policy on in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 21:10:29 GMT
Yes, but how are they working out the R number when they don't know how many people have caught it in the past and built up antibodies? Some estimates say 50% of the population have probably had the virus. If 50% of those who get the virus show no symptoms then that estimate may well prove correct. It also relies on random testing rather than just testing those who have been exposed in high risk situations. The real R number will probably be higher in densly populated areas like London but much lower in rural areas. The fact is that the data simply isn't good enough to draw any strong conclusions. We may never know how many people caught it by the end of the year unless a reliable antibody test can be produced and a good random sample of the population are tested. If they do come up with a vaccine (which may well come with it's own risks) then surely an antibody test should be used first to determine whether the person has already got the antibodies or not? Lots of 'ifs' here - not a great way to base policy on in my opinion. ...but it's Ok to come up with an R number based on if's?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 1, 2020 21:16:03 GMT
OK we are not far from agreeing that the essential point of lockdown is to limit the R number - do you agree? Yes, but how are they working out the R number when they don't know how many people have caught it in the past and built up antibodies? Some estimates say 50% of the population have probably had the virus. If 50% of those who get the virus show no symptoms then that estimate may well prove correct. It also relies on random testing rather than just testing those who have been exposed in high risk situations. The real R number will probably be higher in densly populated areas like London but much lower in rural areas. The fact is that the data simply isn't good enough to draw any strong conclusions. We may never know how many people caught it by the end of the year unless a reliable antibody test can be produced and a good random sample of the population are tested. If they do come up with a vaccine (which may well come with it's own risks) then surely an antibody test should be used first to determine whether the person has already got the antibodies or not? 1) the best estimate I have seen for the actual number who may have had Corona virus in the UK is thought to be about 1.6 million as of 28th April. that would tie in fairly well with the little that is known about the death rate to give the total estimated all area deaths of 30+ thousand As regards antibody testing, there still seems to be doubt about antibodies being present in all of those who have tested positive at the time of infection ..... all not helped by doubts about the accuracy of tests
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 21:17:33 GMT
There still is no vaccine for HIV We can also reduce the chance of getting it by abstaining from having sex or by using condoms so it is in our control. We can only reduce the chance of getting CV19 by isolation and have no control whether we get it or not. Sadly I lost 3 close friends to AIDS in the 1980's There's sheer irony here in someone choosing Fat Freddy as his avatar applauding Government curtailment of civil liberty and effectively placing civilians under house arrest. I can only assume you chose the avatar at random without ever having read any of Gilbert Shel ton's counterculture comics. CBA. Think you may be joining Foxy, enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 1, 2020 21:21:58 GMT
There's sheer irony here in someone choosing Fat Freddy as his avatar applauding Government curtailment of civil liberty and effectively placing civilians under house arrest. I can only assume you chose the avatar at random without ever having read any of Gilbert Shel ton's counterculture comics. CBA. Think you may be joining Foxy, enjoy. You mean you might put me on your block list? And you are posting to let me know because you think I would be bothered by that? You complete and total wanker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 21:26:32 GMT
CBA. Think you may be joining Foxy, enjoy. You mean you might put me on your block list? And you are posting to let me know because you think I would be bothered by that? You complete and total wanker. Hey tosser you been on the booze tonight? Sad little twat that you are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 21:33:40 GMT
There still is no vaccine for HIV We can also reduce the chance of getting it by abstaining from having sex or by using condoms so it is in our control. We can only reduce the chance of getting CV19 by isolation and have no control whether we get it or not. Sadly I lost 3 close friends to AIDS in the 1980's There's sheer irony here in someone choosing Fat Freddy as his avatar applauding Government curtailment of civil liberty and effectively placing civilians under house arrest. I can only assume you chose the avatar at random without ever having read any of Gilbert Shel ton's counterculture comics. SheIton not Shel ton.
|
|