1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

let's call it acceptable collateral damage

Are you prepared to be the Intensivist  on duty doing the triage on who gets to live and who doesn’t ? 
 

2 minutes ago, jimn said:

I believe although I may be wrong that this was the UK governments policy before the hysterical media forced them to change.

Typical useless toffs, letting the media run the country.

Why wasn't there a lockdown on socializing at the height of the (untreatable) HIV epidemics? A whole segment of the population was being culled by a contagious microorganism. Why wasn't homosexuality banned, repressed and suppressed? What was so different from covid (apart from the age group of the casualties)? 

4 hours ago, Moonlover said:

The rationale for the 'lock down' approach to this infection is that it will save lives. But whose lives will be saved?

 

well, we know the answer don't we. We've already been told that it will be, by and large, the elderly and those with underlying health issues. (how that phrase slides off the tongue nowadays)

 

An interesting article on the BBC news web site (which I can't find now or I'd reference it) claimed that if no action was taken in the UK, around 240,000 Covid 19 deaths would occur over the next year. The author then went on to point out if the country continued with the current restrictions, those deaths would be reduced to around 20,000.

 

Then came the punch line. What that would really mean would be 20,000 Covid 19 deaths plus around 200,000 deaths from other causes among the elderly and those with underlying health issues!

 

It's  interesting to note that those of us in the upper age group seem to understand that it's more important to get the world 'back on its feet' rather worry about the fate of us old folk who will be heading for the exit soon anyway.

 

And that's just how I voted. Open the world up again. I'll take my chances with C19.

I am halfway there agreeing with you. I have seen something quoted similar on the BBC. In my opinion if deaths get to 10,000 I would be suprised and even then how many of those would have died anyway.

4 minutes ago, jimn said:

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

it was rumoured that this had been discussed by the UK government. When the question if this was government policy was put to Matt Hancock by Andrew Marr, the answer was to a different question.

I believe although I may be wrong that this was the UK governments policy before the hysterical media forced them to change.

As I understand it this was the initial policy until the statistics started to present a horrific and devastation potential that the combination of infection rate and number of serious cases would overwhelm the healthcare systems such that the Case Fatality Rate (deaths) are exaggerated due to a poor response. 

 

The only solution was to react to the numbers and limit the rate of infection - governments the world over have recognised.

4 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Why wasn't there a lockdown on socializing at the height of the (untreatable) HIV epidemics? A whole segment of the population was being culled by a contagious microorganism. Why wasn't homosexuality banned, repressed and suppressed? What was so different from covid (apart from the age group of the casualties)? 

Less was known - the extent of spread was unknown. But ultimately ‘innocents’ (yes I know a debatable phase given the specific topic) were not impacted, it was possible to avoid catching HIV, just like its possible to avoid contracting Malaria (with antimalarial medication) and there is an Influenza vaccine etc... there is nothing at the moment to stop the spread of Covid-19 other than isolation. 

16 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Why wasn't there a lockdown on socializing at the height of the (untreatable) HIV epidemics? A whole segment of the population was being culled by a contagious microorganism. Why wasn't homosexuality banned, repressed and suppressed? What was so different from covid (apart from the age group of the casualties)? 

You obviously failed maths in school 

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

As I understand it this was the initial policy until the statistics started to present a horrific and devastation potential that the combination of infection rate and number of serious cases would overwhelm the healthcare systems such that the Case Fatality Rate (deaths) are exaggerated due to a poor response. 

 

The only solution was to react to the numbers and limit the rate of infection - governments the world over have recognised.

Fair comment but the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark see this differently. Who is right and who is wrong. I suspect that the UK has it wrong.

7 hours ago, frantick said:

Personally, I'm for Herd Immunity and over 60; smoker and pleasingly plump. And I love life; REAL life.

Your survey does not address herd immunity.

 

restoring the norm is what i assume you mean, but this does not give herd immunity, it gives maximum exposure to a killer flu strain, which everyone agrees will lead to an overload of critical care abilities, culling the herd.

 

herd immunity is indeed what’s needed, but the means of achieving this must be managed such that critical care is not overloaded... this requires that any restoration to normalcy be taken step by step, juggling exposure and rehabilitation within safe medical capacities

 

i do find it interesting that those deemed most at risk, over 60’s (in this framework) are voting more for an action that puts them more at risk, whereas younger posters are happy to follow health providers instructions... crotchety old men ????

 

 

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

sure? South Korean expert reckons a vaccine is 18 months away if lucky

 

 

 

The best takeaway from this was : This is science ... you have to be humble ...

 

Always great to listen to somebody who has no political or ideological 'angle' .....  Much respect.  We all have to see how this all will pan out in the end ...   

13 minutes ago, jimn said:

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

As I understand it this was the initial policy until the statistics started to present a horrific and devastation potential that the combination of infection rate and number of serious cases would overwhelm the healthcare systems such that the Case Fatality Rate (deaths) are exaggerated due to a poor response. 

 

The only solution was to react to the numbers and limit the rate of infection - governments the world over have recognised.

Fair comment but the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark see this differently. Who is right and who is wrong. I suspect that the UK has it wrong.

 

Interesting point: Perhaps population density comes into the fray. 

 

UK: 274 people/km2

Denmark: 138 people/km2

Sweden: 64 people/km2

Norway: 15 people/km2

 

Norway (March 15th) and Denmark (March 14th) closed their borders (Ports and Airports to non residents) and have also taken strong measures. 

Sweden did not react as quickly and are facing growing domestic criticism. 

 

All countries have asked people to stay at home, especially over 70’s, they have closed schools etc. 

 

So I’m not sure how different their response is, other than the ‘enforcement’ of quarantine and isolation measures. Perhaps their communities are more community minded and simply follow the right thing to do without feeling the need to revolt against authority. In fact, particular the citizens of Denmark have been complimented (globally) on following the social distancing measures asked of them. 

2 hours ago, palm said:

A 'case' simply means you caught the virus, not that you are dying, nor in hospital with emergency treatment.

The world is so full of ignorant, pansy bed-wetters. ????

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's do an experiment.  You go mouth to mouth with an infected hooker, contract covid, and report via video on a daily basis on how it's going for you.  Serious proposition.  We'll use your experience to decide how much a "meh" virus this is and how much of a manly man you are. 

 

Thanks in advance.

You enjoy your life so you want to mess up tens of thousands of other peoples.

 

What exactly is the urgent task you guys have to do?  Sit at a bar.  Bore someone.  Sit in traffic for 4 hours.

7 minutes ago, Slosheroni said:

Let's do an experiment.  You go mouth to mouth with an infected hooker, contract covid, and report via video on a daily basis on how it's going for you.  Serious proposition.  We'll use your experience to decide how much a "meh" virus this is and how much of a manly man you are. 

 

Thanks in advance.

I'm up for it if you're footing the bill, and it's a nice one.

37 minutes ago, jimn said:

Fair comment but the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark see this differently. Who is right and who is wrong. I suspect that the UK has it wrong.

Denmark was one of the first in Europe to close schools, restaurants and ban gatherings of more than 10 people. Norway has quite heavy restrictions. In Sweden, people have basically been following social distancing guidelines etc. without being pushed. 

As I see it there were three options. 1) Do nothing 2) Full lock down 3) Partial lock down.  Most governments were clueless in deciding what to do....even with multiple national pandemic plans and exercises under their belt. We must also concede governments are trying to balance political, economic, and health care consequences. Most countries decided "flattening the curve" was the best approach (full and partial lock downs), primarily to save overwhelming their healthcare systems and the political fallout from mass deaths (US was projected at between 1.25 and 2.25 million deaths alone) so some sort of stay-at-home orders were put in place. May not be the best economic decision but it does help the health care/mortality totals and possibly some political benefit. Would a one-time one month worldwide lock down have worked in Feb? Possibly. Would a "do nothing" approach with say 5-10-15 million dead have been acceptable? What about the next one...what will its mortality rate be, rate of infections, who it targets? Maybe we will get better responding to these over time....be better prepared....share information faster....understand the virus quicker....but we aren't there yet and no one can say which approach is the best one, right now, given the conflicting interests trying to be balanced. We all have personal opinions but that won't translate into national policies.

I'm 60 so tough call

 

I think one reason the government's don't go with here immunity at least yet is because it will be such a 5hit show. They will fail so miserably. Then people will start asking hard questions about their money and their officials

7 minutes ago, Silencer said:

As I see it there were three options. 1) Do nothing 2) Full lock down 3) Partial lock down.  Most governments were clueless in deciding what to do....even with multiple national pandemic plans and exercises under their belt. We must also concede governments are trying to balance political, economic, and health care consequences. Most countries decided "flattening the curve" was the best approach (full and partial lock downs), primarily to save overwhelming their healthcare systems and the political fallout from mass deaths (US was projected at between 1.25 and 2.25 million deaths alone) so some sort of stay-at-home orders were put in place. May not be the best economic decision but it does help the health care/mortality totals and possibly some political benefit. Would a one-time one month worldwide lock down have worked in Feb? Possibly. Would a "do nothing" approach with say 5-10-15 million dead have been acceptable? What about the next one...what will its mortality rate be, rate of infections, who it targets? Maybe we will get better responding to these over time....be better prepared....share information faster....understand the virus quicker....but we aren't there yet and no one can say which approach is the best one, right now, given the conflicting interests trying to be balanced. We all have personal opinions but that won't translate into national policies.

The partial lockdown will come when they are confident they have the necessary facilities Systems in place to deal witH a influx. The current lockdowns are giving governments the opportunity to prepare. I believe the idea is to keep all high risk people in lockdown while gradually letting more people go back to work etc so not to overwhelm the health system while allowing selective immunity to develop 

4 minutes ago, Swimfan said:

 allowing selective immunity to develop 

And how long will immunity to this virus last?

No matter what you do, it all goes towards herd immunity by implementing new rules slowly. Lockdown is also part of herd immunity as everybody knows, humans cannot stay on their arrses . Infection rate slows down, but steady for a few months.

It's all about herd immunity, but the speed is the difference whether they want it quickly or slowly.

Without lockdown, the whole story ends in 6 months with a very dire result. With lockodown it's much slower and more palatable and eventually it won't look as bad. 

Regardless if there's a vaccine or not, yearly there are hundreds of thousands of flu deaths. Those people were infected by a carrier. Do you know 100% that no one ever picked up a bug from you going on or coming off a cold? Stranger at a coffee shop counter, screamer at a concert, co-worker's mother in law, etc.

 

Why are the flu fatality numbers pre-Covid-19 acceptable to you when you could also reduce those by staying in your rooms all day and wearing your mask 365 days a year? (Remember, vaccines don't work 100% of the time so you can't blame it on the dead.)

 

I'll answer that for you. Everyone has a number, you're not more caring and compassionate.

 

 Germany opens for business:

 

Germany has lifted its ban on seasonal farm workers entering the country, announcing that farms can bring in 80,000 people after an outcry from the agricultural lobby

 

 It highlights growing concern across Europe that the current lockdown measures will have a devastating impact on the agricultural sector

 

Horst Seehofer, German interior minister, said: “We must keep the state and the economy going despite the pandemic.

 

Under the new plan, German farms will be allowed to bring in a total of 80,000 workers during the months of April and May. In addition, the government is calling for another 20,000 workers to be recruited from the ranks of the unemployed, students, asylum seekers and furloughed workers. Berlin estimates that farmers need at least 100,000 extra people to work in the fields over the coming months.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/871b6d39-4497-49c5-856c-549cb42e67ce

9 hours ago, Brewster67 said:

Carry on with these restrictions and I guarantee the cure is going to be worse than the virus.

 

I assume many others who are happy to ride this out may change their minds if overnight their pension fund collapses.

 

Yes... I have read up a lot on the pension risks at the moment.

Well hopefully still alive to receive it, and as there will be less receivers the fund will survive. lol

That did not last long, did it? It would appear that economic realities will dictate the agendas of politicians, who will be open to their respective lobby groups.

 

We can look forward to the lockdowns being perforated stab by stab, little by little, until they are like a Swiss cheese.

 

All this talk about overcrowding hospitals and saving patients lives will just be so much hot air. The living have to live and they have to work.

 

The reality of this will sink in.

 

At least with those who have to make the calls. See Germany above.

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That did not last long, did it? It would appear that economic realities will dictate the agendas of politicians, who will be open to their respective lobby groups.

 

We can look forward to the lockdowns being perforated stab by stab, little by little, until they are like a Swiss cheese.

 

All this talk about overcrowding hospitals and saving patients lives will just be so much hot air. The living have to live and they have to work.

 

The reality of this will sink in.

 

At least with those who have to make the calls. See Germany above.

 

 

 

Good on Germany. Someone's gotta do it or nobody eats and then everyone dies.

The plan probably  is :

 

Stage 1 : Nothing is gonna happen.
Stage 2 : Something maybe is gonna happen but we should do nothing about it.

Stage 3 : Maybe we should do something about it but there is nothing we can do.

Stage 4 : Maybe  there was something we could have done but it is to late now.

5 hours ago, frantick said:

Regardless if there's a vaccine or not, yearly there are hundreds of thousands of flu deaths. Those people were infected by a carrier. Do you know 100% that no one ever picked up a bug from you going on or coming off a cold? Stranger at a coffee shop counter, screamer at a concert, co-worker's mother in law, etc.

 

Why are the flu fatality numbers pre-Covid-19 acceptable to you when you could also reduce those by staying in your rooms all day and wearing your mask 365 days a year? (Remember, vaccines don't work 100% of the time so you can't blame it on the dead.)

 

I'll answer that for you. Everyone has a number, you're not more caring and compassionate.

 

You speak too much sense.

9 hours ago, Swimfan said:

Are you prepared to be the Intensivist  on duty doing the triage on who gets to live and who doesn’t ? 
 

yeah sure i can do it from home, just a phone call will do

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

As I understand it this was the initial policy until the statistics started to present a horrific and devastation potential that the combination of infection rate and number of serious cases would overwhelm the healthcare systems such that the Case Fatality Rate (deaths) are exaggerated due to a poor response. 

 

The only solution was to react to the numbers and limit the rate of infection - governments the world over have recognised.

People are now questioning the dodgy model worse than the dodgy dossier

9 hours ago, JackGats said:

Why wasn't there a lockdown on socializing at the height of the (untreatable) HIV epidemics? A whole segment of the population was being culled by a contagious microorganism. Why wasn't homosexuality banned, repressed and suppressed? What was so different from covid (apart from the age group of the casualties)? 

1. THe gay community were not the only people living HIV 

2. HIV was not transmitted through droplet infection, but by specific acts, transferring blood or bodilty secretions

3. It was only "contagious" if bodily secrections or blood from an infected person into the blood stream of an unifected person.

4. Places where the gay communties congregated, bars etc were used for community education programs

 

It was not considered scientifically to contagious because it was not transmitted socially.

 

So verydifferent, consider that  only in western countries was HIV contained primarily to the gay communities, does not apply to many African nations. It was only countries with good needle and syringe exchange programs which stopped the transmission into their drug injecting populations 

 

Young women in South Africa are at great risk of being infected with HIV. In 2005, HIV infection prevalence in the age group 15-24 years was 16.9% in women and 4.4% in men (1). The high HIV prevalence in this country is a result of a number of factors which include the following: poverty, violence against women, cultural limitations that promote intergenerational sex, non-condom use and preference for “dry sex,”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2443629/