Quantcast

Coronavirus talk - are people going over the top?

Ekko Star

Distinguished Member
the issue with this is that with these tests we’ll start to see far more people going about their business because they’re immune. How then do you manage those that aren’t immune. Many of these people will either start to go outside simply because they can....or in the mistaken belief that everyone they encounter outside will have already had the virus.
Well surely the point is we do want to go about our business as soon as practicably possible? The tests provide the only route to open up that path.

The people you want to isolate are not the ones who have had it or those that don't have it.

It's actually the ones that currently have it you want to quarantine into a herd so that they can contain the virus and no longer spread it. Once you identify those, that will then help to rapidly curtail the spread.

I think the stats of the tests held so far were out of 90,000 tests only 8,000 people tested positive. Meaning 82,000 were negative.

It's not a large enough sample but if you apply that to the nation you can then begin to understand that the vast majority of people sat at home right now is because of the few.
 
Last edited:

dante01

Distinguished Member
There will not be any immunity. Once we've managed to endure/survive the first wave then it will be a matter of preventing a second and potentially more devastating second wave. This is the position South Korea are now facing. China are also now experiencing new cases in association with foreigners coming into the country. It wouldn't take that much for these outside sources to startinfecting the native population. The only assured defence is a vacine which isn't going to be a reality for quite some time.

As suggested, there are always going to be those that are vulnerable to covid-19 until we have a vacine with which to protect them with.
 

Ekko Star

Distinguished Member
There is no vaccine and no vaccine is classed a cure. It never has been.

Viruses mutate all the time and the best form of defence we have is our immune systems.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
I never said that a vacine is a cure. A vacine is a preventative measure.

Herd imunity is a phalicy and was dropped as being a solution in this country as soon as the true effects of widespread infection elsewhere in the world became apparent. The NHS would go under.

As to mutating then there's no current evidence to suggest that the current strain has changed since it was first discovered in China. The Strain we are have here is the exact same strain that originates from China. Plus the fact, if it mutates then why would herd imunity to the first strain be of any use to a new strain? The conventional flu vacine is being contiaually ammended to account for new flu strains.
 
Last edited:

Ekko Star

Distinguished Member
Immunity is not a fallacy. It's the only cure.

There is no vaccine and the only cure is immunity. You would be waiting a long time for a vaccine of any sort for this and it won't help you anyway.

The concept of controlled Herd immunity is to prevent everyone getting the virus at the same time e.g. halt the speed of the pandemic which is exactly why we have all been told to isolate.

It allows smaller groups of people (Herds) to get it and get over it in a more controlled and less burdenful manner.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Imunity is the only cure?

You are not making any sense.

Herd imunity means mass deaths or at least huge pressures upon medical resources. It is not at all feasible here in the UK.

You appear to have assumed that no one will die or need hospitalisation while in the process of introducing herd imunity. This isn't a lab and you are proposing using real people to test a theory that has already been dismissed by most bodies specialising in such things.
 
Last edited:

Ekko Star

Distinguished Member
Unless you are unware there is no vaccine or cure that you refer to give you assurity.

If you get the virus you have to isolate away from others and allow time for you to recover. Rest, take paracetamol, eat healthy and take it easy. Your immune system deals with it and the majority of people will only suffer mild symptoms.

Those who have poor immune systems of any sort may require further help. There is nothing a doctor or a hospital can really do other than give you a ventilator and oxygen to help you breathe while your body and immune system builds the anti-bodies to get over it.

There is an element of the population who invariably will have poor immune systems or ones who have immune systems that over react to the virus (which is the real danger). This is the area of population of most concern.

Hopefully that makes more sense to you now.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Can you read?

I never said or implied that there was a vascine. I specifically stated "The only assured defence is a vacine which isn't going to be a reality for quite some time.".


By the way, what you are proposing is actually more akin to genocide than it is to herd immunity.
 
Last edited:

Jaded1

Active Member
Yesterday's new deaths in the UK was surprisingly low. Mainstream news ignores and instead goes with the headline "USA DEATHS REACH OVER 1000" which in a per million of the population sense is again really very low (3 deaths per million people)

I'm not saying this isn't a serious situation, because it is, but you can guarantee the likes of ITV, BBC and SKY will try to push the fear factor to the max and downplay any positives.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Yesterday's new deaths in the UK was surprisingly low. Mainstream news ignores and instead goes with the headline "USA DEATHS REACH OVER 1000" which in a per million of the population sense is again really very low (3 deaths per million people)

I'm not saying this isn't a serious situation, because it is, but you can guarantee the likes of ITV, BBC and SKY will try to push the fear factor to the max and downplay any positives.

You have to remember that neither here nor the USA have hit our or their peak yet though. The USA is set to be the epicentre of the virus if current trends continue. We will experience higher levels and we are not expecting to see a decline any time soon.


The sh*t Trump is suggesting about it all being done and dusted by Easter is just that, sh*t!
 

bjd

Well-known Member
There was a time when, to be considered an "expert" in any field, you would need to get your degree, probably followed by your PhD, do postdoc research/fieldwork and have a few peer reviewed papers published. It comes as a relief that we can now have a plethora of experts available on virtually any subject at very short notice.
 

johndickinson

Active Member
There was a time when, to be considered an "expert" in any field, you would need to get your degree, probably followed by your PhD, do postdoc research/fieldwork and have a few peer reviewed papers published. It comes as a relief that we can now have a plethora of experts available on virtually any subject at very short notice.
Welcome to the internet.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
Yesterday's new deaths in the UK was surprisingly low. Mainstream news ignores and instead goes with the headline "USA DEATHS REACH OVER 1000" which in a per million of the population sense is again really very low (3 deaths per million people)

I'm not saying this isn't a serious situation, because it is, but you can guarantee the likes of ITV, BBC and SKY will try to push the fear factor to the max and downplay any positives.

What gets me is that they never put the numbers in context. For example more people died in just the USA of seasonal flu this year than have died of Covid throughout the world. Or the point that 2/3rds of those that do die of Covid would also, due to their age and pre-existing conditions, have died anyway this year.
 

zantarous

Well-known Member
What gets me is that they never put the numbers in context. For example more people died in just the USA of seasonal flu this year than have died of Covid throughout the world. Or the point that 2/3rds of those that do die of Covid would also, due to their age and pre-existing conditions, have died anyway this year.

You know half a billion people are being asked to stay at home, the figures could be far worse. As it is the health services globally are struggling with this. The numbers could be much higher.

With the disarray in the US those numbers are going to start climbing.

I don't think you can extrapolate pre existing conditions and say that would have died anyway, conditions like diabetes and asthma are less likely to kill you if you have flu.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
You know half a billion people are being asked to stay at home, the figures could be far worse. As it is the health services globally are struggling with this. The numbers could be much higher.

With the disarray in the US those numbers are going to start climbing.

I don't think you can extrapolate pre existing conditions and say that would have died anyway, conditions like diabetes and asthma are less likely to kill you if you have flu.
But at some point the cure is going to be worse than the disease - the forecast from the other day was that a drop in GDP of around 7% will lead to more deaths than the virus.

I see all the arguments but the context seems to be missing
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
But that works both ways - the death rate from flu would be a lot lower if the world went into lockdown each year.

There's a vaccine for flu. There isn't one for covid-19.


The idea that it only kills the elderly or those with certain health conditions is also misleading. There are deaths in association with many younger people who have no health issues at all.
 

Ekko Star

Distinguished Member
What gets me is that they never put the numbers in context. For example more people died in just the USA of seasonal flu this year than have died of Covid throughout the world. Or the point that 2/3rds of those that do die of Covid would also, due to their age and pre-existing conditions, have died anyway this year.
You are correct to contextualise it. Whether we now have a peak or attempt to flatten the curve, the area under the curve (volume) is pretty much the same anyway.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
The idea that it only kills the elderly or those with certain health conditions is also misleading. There are deaths in association with many younger people who have no health issues at all.
But in the main it does - and if 2/3rds are going to die anyway this year at what point do you say that you have to prioritise the rest of the population?

Is there any limit to what damage you are prepared to do to the economy and future wellbeing of the population?
 

zantarous

Well-known Member
But at some point the cure is going to be worse than the disease - the forecast from the other day was that a drop in GDP of around 7% will lead to more deaths than the virus.

I see all the arguments but the context seems to be missing
So you would abdicate just carrying on as normal? What would that do the economy? I mean would people still go out and spend money with the piles of dead bodies everywhere? I mean they are after all creating a temporary hospital with 4000 beds, all routine procedures have been cancelled and even those that need life saving cancer treatment have been put on hold. They only reason you aren't seeing this is due to the lock down. The economy would be just as screwed, people won't want to travel and more people would die as hospitals would be over run in days. Those that would need help will have to just die in their homes.

But in the main it does - and if 2/3rds are going to die anyway this year at what point do you say that you have to prioritise the rest of the population?

Is there any limit to what damage you are prepared to do to the economy and future wellbeing of the population?
How are you getting this 2/3 figure that would have died? The news is fully of young people who are fit, no pre-existing conditions and are dying.

Look at this Covid 19 just ripped through this family Coronavirus Ravages 7 Members of a Single Family, Killing 4
 

Ekko Star

Distinguished Member
But in the main it does - and if 2/3rds are going to die anyway this year at what point do you say that you have to prioritise the rest of the population?

Is there any limit to what damage you are prepared to do to the economy and future wellbeing of the population?
And this is exactly the point of contextualising it.

The graphs and figures that are being shown are those of people who are currently infected and don't have the immune systems to be able to fend it off. It's one dimensional in order to protect what the NHS is 'currently' facing.

To contextualise it you would need to know all the people who are and were infected in the whole population, how many have already recovered and how many actually need help. Without widespread testing we will be none the wiser nor how to target treatments and isolation.

The Stats gathered thus far says approx 80% get over it asymptomatic or with mild symptoms, 14% may need to be hospitalised and 6% will unfortunately pass away.

Given it's a pandemic that latter 20% is likely to put a huge strain suddenly on Health Services at a time where they are already stretched.

Once we get over the peak and hopefully when things get back to some form of normality, there will still continue to be people who die of it as do people of flu etc etc.

Unfortunately you cannot change that, that's nature's way.
 

doug56hl

Distinguished Member
But in the main it does - and if 2/3rds are going to die anyway this year at what point do you say that you have to prioritise the rest of the population?

Is there any limit to what damage you are prepared to do to the economy and future wellbeing of the population?
Complete strawman arguement based on the 2/3rds figure you have made up. Unless you have a reputable source for this....

Reported deaths in the dailymail today all with no existing conditions 21, 36, 47 none of whom would have been expected "to die anyway this year".

Woman, 21, with no pre-existing conditions dies from coronavirus

Mother 'dies of coronavirus' after being told she was not a priority

'Fit-and-healthy' banker, 47, dies alone in coronavirus isolation
 

dib

Active Member
There was a time when, to be considered an "expert" in any field, you would need to get your degree, probably followed by your PhD, do postdoc research/fieldwork and have a few peer reviewed papers published. It comes as a relief that we can now have a plethora of experts available on virtually any subject at very short notice.
Karen from Facebook is running webinars.
 

JimmyMac

Distinguished Member
There was a time when, to be considered an "expert" in any field, you would need to get your degree, probably followed by your PhD, do postdoc research/fieldwork and have a few peer reviewed papers published. It comes as a relief that we can now have a plethora of experts available on virtually any subject at very short notice.
Amazing isn’t it, and also incredible how many would be ok to just to allow people to die to save the economy. I never understood this x amount die from such and such so this ain’t so bad argument either. This is on top and it’s got potential to hit your friends, your parents and your kids in a matter of days ***, I’d do anything to protect them. Take my job, my house, whatever, just keep them alive

my wife is scared to death now she is on the front line in the hospital and what she’s sees is not pretty, I’d love to see her reaction if I suggested we should let it run and save the economy instead, hell why don’t those that think the same pop to your nearest hospital and make a similar suggestion and see where it gets you

this whole thing is very real, sod your statistics, anyone can mess with stats to make their argument better. Open your eyes to the real world. Open them to the 21 year old girl that died, to the families already mourning

flu kills more?Fine, pop down to an icu ward near you with a mask and suck yourself up a big lungful, after all, flu kills more....
 

zantarous

Well-known Member
my wife is scared to death now she is on the front line in the hospital and what she’s sees is not pretty, I’d love to see her reaction if I suggested we should let it run and save the economy instead, hell why don’t those that think the same pop to your nearest hospital and make a similar suggestion and see where it gets you
I have a friend on the front line, she was doing a Phd but has been drafted in to help in the hospitals, she text me every morning after her shift, I can tell she is emotionally broken and last night she was talking about how much she had been exposed to it, it is not a matter if she starting showing symptoms but when.

Your absolutely right some people need to go to the hospital to put this into perspective.

As for the economy instead of worrying about it collapsing we should be looking at this as a once in a life time chance to put thing rights, we are in late stage capitalism and this will take it over the edge. We need a universal based income scheme, we need to limit the amount of wealth any one individual can accumulate. These are the answers not carrying on as we are where people have to worry about paying the bills or getting sick and dying.

We know now this can happen we need to change our economic model for the future when it happens again.
 

Latest News

BenQ launches new Home Cinema and Gaming projectors
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Acorn TV streaming service to launch in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG UK 2020 TV rollout and prices revealed
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
TV shipment forecasts slashed for Q2 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung Display to quit LCD production
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom