1 hour ago, UbonThani said:

Economic forecasts

Co2

Stock market forecasts

Sars forecasts

Swine flu markets

 

Blind freddy could find evidence if one looked

I am sorry your response indicates you lack the evidence to proves you post.

That surprises me not at all, what you really want is validation of your reckless posts.

On 4/4/2020 at 2:18 PM, pdtokyo said:

maybe not that simple ... any resources put into dealing with problem A ... for example CV19 ... are by definition not being expended on problems B, C, D etc ... for example cancer therapy, malaria, smoking prevention ...

 

At some point, the resources put into either maintaining a lockdown (or dealing with consequences of releasing a lockdown) will divert into the next problem that floats to the top of the pile ... which may be B, X, Y or Z.

 

Nobody controls this stuff, it all happens as a result of squillions of individual decisions and random natural events. 

 

I can't see a TV poll making things any clearer.

 

 

More lives will be lost through poverty, hunger and despair as a result of the lockdowns than would have been lost if herd immunity had been applied from the beginning.

"Over 60 and believe we should restore freedoms, the economy, and return to normal life"

 

A couple of questions for this group:

 

1. Do you have stocks, bonds or some other funds that are being negatively affected by the lockdown?

 

2. How exactly would we 'return to a normal life' with so many sick and dieing, with health services stretched to breaking point?

 

Sweden is about to change it policies, similar to Asia I believe cultural factors played a part in slow transmission.

 

34 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I am sorry your response indicates you lack the evidence to proves you post.

That surprises me not at all, what you really want is validation of your reckless posts.

Your post indicates you don't care if you are being conned and you don't know how to research things.

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/06/coronavirus-hype-crisis-predictions-sars-swine-flu-panics

 

In 1997 we were told that bird flu could kill millions worldwide. Thankfully, it did not. In 1999 European Union scientists warned that BSE “could kill 500,000 people”. In total, 177 Britons died of vCJD. The first Sars outbreak of 2003 was reported by as having “a 25% chance of killings tens of millions” and being “worse than Aids”. In 2006, another bout of bird flu was declared “the first pandemic of the 21st century”, the scares in 2003, 2004 and 2005 having failed to meet their body counts.

Then, in 2009, pigs replaced birds. The BBC announced that swine flu “could really explode”. The chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, declared that “65,000 could die”. He spent £560m on a Tamiflu and Relenza stockpile, which soon deteriorated. The Council of Europe’s health committee chairman described the hyping of the 2009 pandemic as “one of the great medical scandals of the century”.

21 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

More lives will be lost through poverty, hunger and despair as a result of the lockdowns than would have been lost if herd immunity had been applied from the beginning.

Dying of boredom already

 https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2016/04/01/how-accurate-are-economic-forecasts

 

 

4 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/06/coronavirus-hype-crisis-predictions-sars-swine-flu-panics

That story was written exactly a month ago. Now that Boris has it I'd be surprised if the author hasn't changed his opinion.

 

Bird flu, Pig Flu, MERS all had potential for an epidemic. It has happened before and has been on the cards a long time.

 

If this is an over reaction, what about 9/11 then? Only a few thousand deaths, yet look at the changes that were made. Yesterday alone 1,300 died in the US, tomorrow it'll probably be more.

14 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

 

In 1997 we were told that bird flu could kill millions worldwide. Thankfully, it did not. In 1999 European Union scientists warned that BSE “could kill 500,000 people”. In total, 177 Britons died of vCJD. The first Sars outbreak of 2003 was reported by as having “a 25% chance of killings tens of millions” and being “worse than Aids”. In 2006, another bout of bird flu was declared “the first pandemic of the 21st century”, the scares in 2003, 2004 and 2005 having failed to meet their body counts.

Then, in 2009, pigs replaced birds. The BBC announced that swine flu “could really explode”. The chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, declared that “65,000 could die”. He spent £560m on a Tamiflu and Relenza stockpile, which soon deteriorated. The Council of Europe’s health committee chairman described the hyping of the 2009 pandemic as “one of the great medical scandals of the century”.

Weird post. 

Whatever the facts of those previous threats we are dealing with a new threat now with a virus that has different characteristics than anything we've dealt with before. 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Weird post. 

Whatever the facts of those previos threats we are dealing with a new threat now with a virus that has different characteristics than anything we've dealt with before. 

Yes and no, another name for covid is severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS did present a danger, just because it didn't happen doesn't mean we shouldn't have been concerned and acted.

 

If it was a law and order issue or terrorism I don't think we'd have people saying it's an over reaction. For example the Trump ban on Muslims entering was seen by some as very important. How many people died from terrorism in the US over the past two years?

19 minutes ago, mixed said:

That story was written exactly a month ago. Now that Boris has it I'd be surprised if the author hasn't changed his opinion.

 

Bird flu, Pig Flu, MERS all had potential for an epidemic. It has happened before and has been on the cards a long time.

 

If this is an over reaction, what about 9/11 then? Only a few thousand deaths, yet look at the changes that were made. Yesterday alone 1,300 died in the US, tomorrow it'll probably be more.

The forecasts were all wrong though. That's the point.

 

Boris is stressed out and looks like a junk food man. No surprise he is sick. Stress and junk food can see you hammered by flus etc.

 

 

8 minutes ago, mixed said:

Yes and no, another name for covid is severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS did present a danger, just because it didn't happen doesn't mean we shouldn't have been concerned and acted.

 

If it was a law and order issue or terrorism I don't think we'd have people saying it's an over reaction. For example the Trump ban on Muslims entering was seen by some as very important. How many people died from terrorism in the US over the past two years?

Minor ban. Didnt apply worldwide.

People get real! 

 

Covid 19 is particularly difficult because 

 

 

It is massively infectious. Even from just breathing. 

 

It has a very long period before any symptoms show. 

 

People are still infectioud during that period. 

 

According to the best current studies available about a quarter to a half of infected people show no symptoms at all. Still infectious. 

 

Yes older people and people with health issues are higher risk. But people that say most such people would have died soon are full of it. 

 

For example asthma and high blood pressure. Such conditions are usually controlled often for many decades with medications. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/may/25/foodanddrink.boris

 

He lives on junk

1 minute ago, UbonThani said:

The forecasts were all wrong though. That's the point.

 

Boris is stressed out and looks like a junk food man. No surprise he is sick. Stress and junk food can see you hammered by flus etc.

 

 

Always an excuse to act like this isn't a serious problem. I find that deplorable. 

24 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

The forecasts were all wrong though. That's the point.

 

Boris is stressed out and looks like a junk food man. No surprise he is sick. Stress and junk food can see you hammered by flus etc.

 

 

The story if from a month ago, it's now been proven wrong and I doubt the author would deny that. If there was a more recent article saying similar things you would have posted it.

26 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/may/25/foodanddrink.boris

 

He lives on junk

as opposed to spewing it out

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Weird post. 

Whatever the facts of those previous threats we are dealing with a new threat now with a virus that has different characteristics than anything we've dealt with before. 

Quite. At the end of December the whole world knew there was an outbreak in China of an unknown virus. All world leaders are guilty of gross negligence in not immediately quarantining all arrivals from China. China even more so in continuing to allow international departures.

Unfortunately some of the loudest voices took the view it was a Chinese problem and nothing to do with them.

Containment is the real solution, it's how they beat the great plague in 1665, testing wasn't an issue then.

3 hours ago, mixed said:

"Over 60 and believe we should restore freedoms, the economy, and return to normal life"

 

A couple of questions for this group:

 

1. Do you have stocks, bonds or some other funds that are being negatively affected by the lockdown?

 

2. How exactly would we 'return to a normal life' with so many sick and dieing, with health services stretched to breaking point?

 

Sweden is about to change it policies, similar to Asia I believe cultural factors played a part in slow transmission.

 

1. Savings and CD's. Yes, I know they lose money to inflation, but I can live with that and right now they're not looking too bad.

 

2. Return to normal. Even beds in NYC are much less utilized than expected.

Here is a new research about wearing a mask or not:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

On 4/6/2020 at 1:38 PM, UbonThani said:

They want everyone to act like sheep.

But if everyone was “woke” like you, you’d be one of the flock...

So much to the way of sweden:

 

On 4/6/2020 at 4:01 PM, richard_smith237 said:

How many Corona has killed that would have lived many years for it... at what cut off is acceptable?

Coldness aside - it would be extremely useful information. 

 

 

We started wearing seatbelts in cars that are much safer, the drowning numbers are less in developed nations (higher safety standards), climbing is a leisure activity and a choice - quite different from contracting a virus which is indiscriminate in who it infects. 

[Seems somewhat strange to me that Corona is singled out as worthy of destroying the world economy to attempt to stop] 

Maybe if you were a key decision maker (i.e lead politician, CEO of a major influencing company, leader of industry etc) and you were privy to more information and modelling you would agree with the Lockdown and distancing measures. 

 

The potential numbers. If the spread of this virus continues unmitigated the numbers could be devastating. Fortunately we won't see these numbers as mitigation measures are already in place. 

 

 

There will become a time where it makes sense to return to work for all etc. 

Essential activities have continued to operate and many are working from home etc. However as you have mentioned before, there will be a huge economic hit and once this virus shows signs of slowing a path forwards can be planed to mitigate the impact to the economy. 

 

 

Maybe if you were a key decision maker (i.e lead politician, CEO of a major influencing company, leader of industry etc) and you were privy to more information and modelling you would agree with the Lockdown and distancing measures. 

The NZ chamber of commerce ( as reported on radio ) has called for more businesses to be allowed to open and that the definition of "essential" work is too restrictive

 

The potential numbers.

Potential does not mean actual. Australia has, IMO, a far better policy and their death rate is about the same as NZ's.

 

 

return to work for all

If this goes on much longer ( in NZ as I'm not in other countries so can't speak for them ) there won't be many jobs left to go back to. There will be no work for ALL.

Along with the poverty to come, in that event, there will be increased suicides, increased poverty, increased domestic violence, increased divorces and partnership destruction, increased inflation, increased taxation, increased gang numbers and increased crime. I can't think of a single thing that will be better, other than ( hopefully ) the destruction of mass overseas tourism and the closure of domestic air travel, but if that happens even more thousands will be cast into poverty.

I see nothing other than bad stuff to come from this harsh lockdown.

 

We started wearing seatbelts in cars that are much safer

No we didn't and I remember when seat belts came in. They were still the unsafe cars we drove back in the 1950s.

On 4/6/2020 at 5:29 PM, Jingthing said:

People get real! 

 

Covid 19 is particularly difficult because 

 

 

It is massively infectious. Even from just breathing. 

 

It has a very long period before any symptoms show. 

 

People are still infectioud during that period. 

 

According to the best current studies available about a quarter to a half of infected people show no symptoms at all. Still infectious. 

 

Yes older people and people with health issues are higher risk. But people that say most such people would have died soon are full of it. 

 

For example asthma and high blood pressure. Such conditions are usually controlled often for many decades with medications. 

What some of us are saying is that the people with potential to die from Corona should have been isolated and the rest of us just carry on, NOT that everyone should be locked down and lose their jobs.

On current knowledge, people without underlying medical problems are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to have more than symptoms and will NOT die.

On 4/6/2020 at 3:53 PM, mixed said:

The story if from a month ago, it's now been proven wrong and I doubt the author would deny that. If there was a more recent article saying similar things you would have posted it.

false. Less deaths than most things by far.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What some of us are saying is that the people with potential to die from Corona should have been isolated and the rest of us just carry on, NOT that everyone should be locked down and lose their jobs.

On current knowledge, people without underlying medical problems are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to have more than symptoms and will NOT die.

correct

On 4/8/2020 at 11:37 PM, HighPriority said:

But if everyone was “woke” like you, you’d be one of the flock...

Makes no sense.

7 hours ago, snowgard said:

So much to the way of sweden:

 

Italy 17000+

 

 

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Maybe if you were a key decision maker (i.e lead politician, CEO of a major influencing company, leader of industry etc) and you were privy to more information and modelling you would agree with the Lockdown and distancing measures. 

The NZ chamber of commerce ( as reported on radio ) has called for more businesses to be allowed to open and that the definition of "essential" work is too restrictive

 

The potential numbers.

Potential does not mean actual. Australia has, IMO, a far better policy and their death rate is about the same as NZ's.

 

 

return to work for all

If this goes on much longer ( in NZ as I'm not in other countries so can't speak for them ) there won't be many jobs left to go back to. There will be no work for ALL.

Along with the poverty to come, in that event, there will be increased suicides, increased poverty, increased domestic violence, increased divorces and partnership destruction, increased inflation, increased taxation, increased gang numbers and increased crime. I can't think of a single thing that will be better, other than ( hopefully ) the destruction of mass overseas tourism and the closure of domestic air travel, but if that happens even more thousands will be cast into poverty.

I see nothing other than bad stuff to come from this harsh lockdown.

 

We started wearing seatbelts in cars that are much safer

No we didn't and I remember when seat belts came in. They were still the unsafe cars we drove back in the 1950s.

Doctors on radio - people dying from other things due to fear of going to hospital.