Re-evaluating our relationship with COVID

D

Deleted member 438547

Guest
didn't buy into the whole hand sanitiser thing? what an odd statement? there is not a lot to buy into, it works

Turn of phrase. Didn't use it. Obviously didn't need to. My presumption would be that my hand hygiene was already good enough.
 
D

Deleted member 438547

Guest
Anything in doors run the risk of passing COVID-19 and my sister in-law got COVID from indoor 2 meters away. Fortunately her x didn't get COVID as he in the at risk group and both of her Kids could have passed it on.

The same thing would happen in Restaurants and Pub and more like as if 1 in 150 people go to the pub the you might say the you can Guarantee 1 person every day who visits has COVID. Staff/Room can pass it on the 1 to the other 150 people and so on.

So basically your idea is that the loss of a few people i.e. 1 in 10000 is ok so that you can go to the pub. Personally I don't think I am at risk, but for others I need to follow the rules and keep this under control.

The whole 1 in 10000 vs. being able to go to the pub is actually a great example of the hysteria I am trying to highlight.

Keeping everything shut to save 1 in 10000 from COVID will probably cost the lives of many more in that group of 10000 who will die from other causes.

I suspect we are already at the point in the current lockdown where more are dying each day from the effects of lockdown than the disease the lockdown is being implimented to prevent.
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
I suspect we are already at the point in the current lockdown where more are dying each day from the effects of lockdown than the disease the lockdown is being implimented to prevent.

I'd say you were quite wrong.

If we didn't lockdown COVID would have continued to spread and multiply to the extent hospitals were overwhelmed and medical staff had to decide who to treat and who to quietly let die on a trolley in a corridor, alone.
 
D

Deleted member 438547

Guest
I'd say you were quite wrong.

If we didn't lockdown COVID would have continued to spread and multiply to the extent hospitals were overwhelmed and medical staff had to decide who to treat and who to quietly let die on a trolley in a corridor, alone.

Where did I argue against the concept of lockdown?
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
You want restrictions lifted, yet the country only has a small percentage of fully vaccinated citizens (both doses).

You want to be able to go to the pub. It's worth the risk.

But you approve of lockdown and think it's saving lives?
 
D

Deleted member 897717

Guest
The whole 1 in 10000 vs. being able to go to the pub is actually a great example of the hysteria I am trying to highlight.

Keeping everything shut to save 1 in 10000 from COVID will probably cost the lives of many more in that group of 10000 who will die from other causes.

I suspect we are already at the point in the current lockdown where more are dying each day from the effects of lockdown than the disease the lockdown is being implimented to prevent.

Suspicion and evidence are two different things.
And it's not like once Covid patients are discharged from hospital that's the end of pressure on the NHS. This makes sobering reading


And setting aside the issue of lockdown/restrictions we need to get our heads around the fact this virus poses not only a "crisis" threat to medical facilties in the UK at the time of the acute phase of the disease but is going to be a longer term demand on them. A demand that did not exist before December 2019.

So however infection is "limited" it needs to be because even if people "survive" we are simply adding more and more demand on the NHS in the future....and probably adding to the benefit bill as well.
 
D

Deleted member 438547

Guest
You want restrictions lifted, yet the country only has a small percentage of fully vaccinated citizens (both doses).

You want to be able to go to the pub. It's worth the risk.

But you approve of lockdown and think it's saving lives?

One dose = immunity.

Two = longer lasting immunity.

This is indisputible, as otherwise the government (and other government) wouldn't be using a one dose strategy.

You obviously have little in the way of argument which is why you went straight to quoting tropes ie. "just want to go the pub".
 

Aristaeus

Well-known Member
Suspicion and evidence are two different things.
And it's not like once Covid patients are discharged from hospital that's the end of pressure on the NHS. This makes sobering reading


And setting aside the issue of lockdown/restrictions we need to get our heads around the fact this virus poses not only a "crisis" threat to medical facilties in the UK at the time of the acute phase of the disease but is going to be a longer term demand on them. A demand that did not exist before December 2019.

So however infection is "limited" it needs to be because even if people "survive" we are simply adding more and more demand on the NHS in the future....and probably adding to the benefit bill as well.

Vaccines reduce the severity of symptoms by a lot, so I don't think the issues in your link are going to be a big problem going forward.
 
D

Deleted member 897717

Guest
Vaccines reduce the severity of symptoms by a lot, so I don't think the issues in your link are going to be a big problem going forward.

Is it only the people who get it "badly" who end up with the long term problems and "long Covid"? Have you come across any academic studies about this?

These are genuine questions because the study I posted the link to followed a distinctive group who had been "bad" enough to be be admitted so we might expect their "long term" to be worse.

I suppose it needs a longitudinal study of those not bad enough to get admitted to hospital but of course identifying them would not be so easy and there will not necessarily be any clinical notes to determine "how badly" they were affected at the time. Would make a valid study with matched "non infected control group" more difficult.

Maybe we just have to wait and see how many people been infected but not admitted at that time start rolling up in hospitals and at GP surgeries?

(Confused)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
What is YOUR endgame?


To vaccinate the country to a level that we can gradually reduce restrictions and make sure the NHS can cope and resume its normal operations.
To reopen once it's presumed to be safe enough and do so gradually and monitor it. Not just open everything for a free for all now a large percentage has been partially vaccinated.

Well we won't get 100%

So we won't have immunity after one dose then?

The 2nd dose increases the vaccine efficacy.

One dose = immunity.

Your words.
 
D

Deleted member 438547

Guest
To vaccinate the country to a level that we can gradually reduce restrictions and make sure the NHS can cope and resume its normal operations.
To reopen once it's presumed to be safe enough and do so gradually and monitor it. Not just open everything for a free for all now a large percentage has been partially vaccinated.



So we won't have immunity after one dose then?

The 2nd dose increases the vaccine efficacy.



Your words.

So you are firmly in the camp of hide or die?
 

ashenfie

Well-known Member
So based on the fact in some months in 2020 3x more people died than expected. it seams some are happy for that as long as going to the pub is not banned.
 

Aristaeus

Well-known Member
... The 2nd dose increases the vaccine efficacy.

Only slightly. The vast majority of efficacy comes with the first dose. 76% after 1st dose, rising to 82% after 2nd dose, so the 2nd dose only adds an extra 6% on top of the 1st dose.
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
Yes, but my point was it's not

1st dose = immunity
2nd dose = longer immunity.

Neither of which are correct. They won't concede that they're incorrect.

They're trolling IMO, they're on ignore.
 

djtort

Standard Member
Turn of phrase. Didn't use it. Obviously didn't need to. My presumption would be that my hand hygiene was already good enough.
I think this goes back to a point you made in your opening post about the responsibility being passed back to the citizens. Inevitably it will have to happen.
Hand hygiene serves as a useful example because we’ve undoubtedly seen others historically being very lax about it. I would say on most occasions when I used a toilet at a workplace or one inside a bar/restaurant/concert venue etc. I saw other people leaving without washing their hands.
At workplaces I saw people eating food at their desks without washing their hands before they ate routinely.
 

Aetius

Banned
Well we won't get 100% so do we accept society is finished.

What is YOUR endgame?
Sit inside and be really, really angry.
That’s all everyone has to do.
An eternity sat inside carrying out all interaction online.
None of this pesky go out and meet people, you might have to spend money!
 

JimmyMac

Distinguished Member
Do some not see any middle ground? If we just follow what needs to be done and open up gradually as more people receive vaccines and second doses then we all get there together

It’s not hide or die, it’s being aware of the situation and understanding it’s not over yet.

Any irrational fear needs to become a rational one and any blasé people need to realise the threat is still here
 

Mevlock

Distinguished Member
So you are firmly in the camp of hide or die?

That's incredibly unfair and will just get many people refusing to engage with you in any discussion whatsoever.

I actually broadly agree with you. That people will need to get over their fear and return to normal life at some point.

However we are in unknown territory here. We simply do not know what the effects of just opening up everything with 45 percent of the population having had just one jab with an efficacy of around 75%.

We don't know if it would lead to an exponential increase in cases and hospitalisations again. I would suggest if you have these views that you go and do some serious reading on all the mathematical modelling that has been done that suggests the outcome would not be great.

It's all looking highly promising but it's the last withdrawing of restrictions in June that will be the real problem. The modelling suggests a slow and careful unlocking strategy along with us continuing to vaccinate as many as possible will result in the smallest 3rd wave, possibly even no 3rd wave.

But unlocking everything now still leaves a huge number of people vulnerable to hospitalisation and death which could overwhelm the NHS again, it's this that is the problem. A slow unlocking as we get as close to herd immunity as possible through vaccination is easily the smartest way forward.

I don't personally think we need to wait until we do 2nd doses. It's just not necessary. The modelling doesn't suggest we need to.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that at some point once the level of risk is much reduced that we shouldn't just get on with it.

But everyone has a different level of risk so their attitude to the way forward is going to be slightly different. If your older and have some underlying conditions it's perfectly understandable you'd want to see that risk reduced as much as possible. Whereas if your younger and fit and healthy your risk level is ALREADY very very low. In that case your probably chomping at the bit to get unlocked.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
TL ; DR : a personality once said "tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance"

TL ; DR : I find it much more interesting to discuss the psychology of people presenting closed opinions on internet forums, than to answer the actual closed question

@JimmyMac

The thread starter's first post is framed as a closed question: their opinion is rational and the opposing opinion is irrational. A middle ground involves nuance, something that anyone is capable of evaluating

The published data is objective. What is subjective is the decisions of governments in response to the data

The UK is managing the vaccine roll out (first doses anyway) and infection rate better than other nations; Brazil, France and Turkey without thinking deeply about it.

It is rational to recognise the UK and other nations are different

It is rational and nuanced to propose travel between nation states that are on top of their Covid management.

It does not strike me as rational to suggest all international travel should be open: the borders of other countries is not up to the UK government whatsoever and the data for some nations is not where is the UK is currently
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Panasonic JZ2000 Final Thoughts - TV Calibration: Should you? And More...
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Black Friday 2021: What you need to know
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Blu-ray Special - The Cinema of Zhang Yimou & Gong Li
  • By Mark Costello
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 24th November 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Panasonic 2021 TV update brings full 4K resolution with VRR and HFR
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best Hi-Fi Products of 2021 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Ed Selley
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom