Coronavirus - Part Two.

[onewheeldave]

3 hours ago, makapaka said:

or he’s in complete denial.

 

Unfortunately there are millions if not billions of people who do have the risk factors that make them prone to  bad outcomes.

 

which is why it’s a problem. 

 

Given that the current total world population is only 7.9 billion, it's certainly not the case that billions have the risk factors

 

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

 

 

Daily cases are doubling twice (quadrupling) roughly every 3 weeks (eg see Our World in Data website, set the y-scale to log to help estimate doubling times)......... If hospitalization or death rates are going to be so high as to make this plan untenable the sooner this is realised the better.

Cases being the operative word [not hospitalisations or deaths]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

40 million+ people have cared enough to protect you.

You should thank them.

A ludicrous stance- the majority acted out of self interest due to the fact that they believed [rightly or wrongly] they would fall victim to a deadly pandemic

2 hours ago, top4718 said:

The CDC has all death rates under 69 years old to be less than 4% and that doesn’t take into account pre-existing conditions, I’ll take my chances with that, I’m probably more at risk driving to work.

What about mental health, missed cancer screenings, care home residents isolated from family, young children having no social interaction, delayed operations and so on and so on, people who give the impression of caring are certainly very selfish.

Excellent response. 

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Your accusation that there are 40 million+ "...people who give the impression of caring are certainly very selfish..." confounds rational thought.

 

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't- they cared about one cherry picked negative [covid infections] and dismissed all the others- the consequences of, and purely of, the lockdowns and measures- ie the mental health issues, the destroyed small businesses, the damage to civil liberties, the children with terminal cancer who died unable to be visited by family, the massive numbers of untreated patients, some with cancer, which are likely to overwhelm the NHS, care home deaths etc, etc, etc.

 

And then these selfish people who acted primarily out of self interest and fear, have the temerity to accuse those of us who did care about all the above, of being selfish!!!

Edited June 13, 2021 by onewheeldave

[Guest sibon]

19 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Given that the current total world population is only 7.9 billion, it's certainly not the case that billions have the risk factors

 

 

Being over 60 is a risk factor. There are almost 1bn over 60s on the planet.

 

So, it is certainly the case that billions have the risk factors.

 

Maybe, now we have the tools, we should concentrate on breaking the link between infection and serious illness. Then we can get on with life.

 

A good start to that would be for everyone to take advantage of the vaccine and continue with the sensible, proportionate public health precautions that we’ve been asked to follow.

 

Join the team.

[butlers]

Nah ,why bother with all them self interested health professionals coining it in.

 

[Guest makapaka]

55 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Given that the current total world population is only 7.9 billion, it's certainly not the case that billions have the risk factors

Is it? What percentage of that 7.9billion is over 65 and/or at risk due to pre-existing conditions? 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by makapaka

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

And then these selfish people who acted primarily out of self interest and fear, have the temerity to accuse those of us who did care about all the above, of being selfish!

What a weird argument.

 

is it not possible to care about all of those things? What did all the selfish people do?

 

wear a mask? Wash their hands? Not gather for house parties?

[Carbuncle]

4 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 lockdowns [not covid] have creasted a huge waiting list of people who couldn't get treatment [during the lockdowns]

Had we not chosen to have lockdowns in response to covid we would have had at least another quarter million covid deaths. Further under this scenario our hospitals would scarcely have been able to provide treatment at anything like normal levels while the pandemic passed through the population.

 

Or are you another who insists on their own alternative facts.

4 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

7 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

 

 

Daily cases are doubling twice (quadrupling) roughly every 3 weeks (eg see Our World in Data website, set the y-scale to log to help estimate doubling times)......... If hospitalization or death rates are going to be so high as to make this plan untenable the sooner this is realised the better.

Cases being the operative word [not hospitalisations or deaths]

You can not keep doubling the cases without that doubling process transferring to hospitalizations and deaths. The government can decide the price is worth paying but there is a price.

[butlers]

As to Sage projections at the very beginning when it was a completely new unknown disease.

Both Imperial College and independently the CDC have found  under the circumstances of the headline making number was going to be an under count.

Those reviews were about mid Sept  from memory.

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by butlers

[Longcol]

5 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 

No it doesn't- they cared about one cherry picked negative [covid infections] and dismissed all the others- the consequences of, and purely of, the lockdowns and measures- ie the mental health issues, the destroyed small businesses, the damage to civil liberties, the children with terminal cancer who died unable to be visited by family, the massive numbers of untreated patients, some with cancer, which are likely to overwhelm the NHS, care home deaths etc, etc, etc.

 

And then these selfish people who acted primarily out of self interest and fear, have the temerity to accuse those of us who did care about all the above, of being selfish!!!

Been waiting for you to give us the figures on this since last October.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/198/?tab=comments#comment-8375366

 

[Annie Bynnol]

7 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 

A ludicrous stance- the majority acted out of self interest due to the fact that they believed [rightly or wrongly] they would fall victim to a deadly pandemic

Excellent response. 

No it doesn't- they cared about one cherry picked negative [covid infections] and dismissed all the others- the consequences of, and purely of, the lockdowns and measures- ie the mental health issues, the destroyed small businesses, the damage to civil liberties, the children with terminal cancer who died unable to be visited by family, the massive numbers of untreated patients, some with cancer, which are likely to overwhelm the NHS, care home deaths etc, etc, etc.

 

And then these selfish people who acted primarily out of self interest and fear, have the temerity to accuse those of us who did care about all the above, of being selfish!!!

We used used to be 'sheeple' now we are 'selfish sheeple'.*

 

*Tongue twister competition? 

[top4718]

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Had we not chosen to have lockdowns in response to covid we would have had at least another quarter million covid deaths. Further under this scenario our hospitals would scarcely have been able to provide treatment at anything like normal levels while the pandemic passed through the population.

 

Or are you another who insists on their own alternative facts.

You can not keep doubling the cases without that doubling process transferring to hospitalizations and deaths. The government can decide the price is worth paying but there is a price.

Cases can be people who have no symptoms whatsoever, its no precursor to anything. People in ventilation capable beds in the NHS hasn't risen by any margin during the last few weeks, it stands at 158 out of a 67m population (coronavirus.data.gov.uk) the number of people in general and acute beds is currently lower than it was in the whole of 2019 (NHS England).

 

It was also interesting to read the words of Dr Thomas House of Manchester Uni who sits on the Governments modelling team - Future modelling on the pandemic must take into account harms caused by lockdowns and that lockdowns cannot become the default option for dealing with outbreaks. 

 

I'm sure he knows a little more than Annie Bynol.

 

 

9 hours ago, butlers said:

Life is full of risks.

Yet not long back you were denying there were ANY deaths AT ALL from the virus.

Then it was just flu.

Then it was masks don't help.

Then testing does not work

But mostly unless you are old or have preconditions ,it's nothing.

The thing being our behaviour as the lucky young-ish and healthy needs caution rather than the blithe "I'm alright jack " that comes out over every other post you do

You have said  you judge the risk ( to you) by intuition.

Can't you see how barmy that sounds.

 Either a glorious 3-0 romp to England or an own goal calamity 0-1  .

Anyhow after yesterday's traumas,watching Denmark whatever happens  it's only a game 

I never once said there were no deaths from the virus. 

Masks absolutely do not work

Testing works but is unreliable

The old or pre-existing conditions is correct in 97% of cases

I've got this far in life without serious illness with having a nanny state tell me what to do.