Covid19 - no need to panic - still

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2020 at 6:40 PM, chessman said:

I believe the case at the start for strict lockdowns was very good, we wanted to avoid healthcare systems being overwhelmed,

So, what happens when all the people with no immunity are allowed to mingle with the inevitable carriers and the second wave occurs?

Is your plan to lockdown every time the death rate increases?

If a vaccine is 12 to 18 months away, there will probably be zero economy by then, and people will be dying from the lockdowns.

 

I'm for doing what they did in 1918.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2020 at 5:27 PM, Logosone said:

The dole and pension system are the clear losers here.

Indeed. Oldies and the poor are easy targets. Why target the rich that can easily afford to pay more tax when they have influence, if the poor and voiceless are available to ruin, so the rich can continue to live lives of excess they have come to expect.

[RJRS1301]

Covid-19 causing strokes in young people – US reports

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/

 

Still just the 'flu??
 

 

[Logosone]

There is mounting evidence that the virus also causes neurological damage, not just lung damage, but then the flu can also cause stroke and neurological damage. 

 

The data shows this is the case in only a minority of affected, like with the flu. Covid 19 does thicken the blood though, no doubt about it.

 

Primarily the virus affects the lung, like the flu.

 

German neurologists have warned against a faulty Japanese paper which claims that a patient got the virus only in his brain. A neurological infection can happen, but it is not likely it happened without affecting other organs like the lung.

 

Some poor American and Japanese research should be peer reviewed before it is accepted as gospel.

[johnnybangkok]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's called treating people as being adults responsible for their own actions. Those that wish to isolate are entirely able to do so on their own, without the nanny state treating us like we are all incompetents that have to be locked up whether it is necessary or not.

 

Great idea. And why we're at it why don't we just let people drink drive? Or not wear seat belts or decide what medical treatment they should/shouldn't have or whether they send their kids to school or pay/not pay their taxes or obey/not obey the law?

I mean they are all responsible adults so I can't see how it could go wrong.

[johnnybangkok]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, what happens when all the people with no immunity are allowed to mingle with the inevitable carriers and the second wave occurs?

Is your plan to lockdown every time the death rate increases?

If a vaccine is 12 to 18 months away, there will probably be zero economy by then, and people will be dying from the lockdowns.

 

I'm for doing what they did in 1918.

 

Letting 50 million die? Great plan.

No one is talking about locking down for 12 to 18 months. Stop being so hysterical and cherry picking a narrative that suits your purpose. Anyone with half a modicum of sense understands that self-isolation was always going to be a temporary measure until the numbers of infected stabilised THEN a gentle easing of the lockdown would ensue to ensure the current wave and likely second wave wouldn't overwhelm health services and cause even more deaths. This would also give governments time to increase the testing, identifying and isolating of the infected (by far the most effected way to combat this virus and where governments have been sorely lacking) thus not making an already bad pendemic even worse. 

I'm really not sure why this is so difficult to understand but I suppose all you 'independent thinkers' who 'risk unpopularity by not going with the majority' are the knights in shining armour, battling 'the man' for the good of humanity and we really should be listened to you instead of actual professionals who do this for a living. I mean, apart from our lives, what have we got to lose?

[Logosone]

41 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Great idea. And why we're at it why don't we just let people drink drive? Or not wear seat belts or decide what medical treatment they should/shouldn't have or whether they send their kids to school or pay/not pay their taxes or obey/not obey the law?

I mean they are all responsible adults so I can't see how it could go wrong.

The difference with drink driving is very obvious. 

 

A drunk driver is intoxicated. With isolation of the healthy the opposite is the case, the healthy and unaffected are asked to self-isolate.

 

Hardly the same thing. What is being asked is more like asking EVERYONE not to drive because a small percentage maybe drunk and there may be accidents. Most people can see the lunacy in this approach.

 

If you want to test the healhty, by all means do so. If they then test positive for SARS Cov2, by all means isolate them.

 

Don't isolate the healthy from the healthy. It's madness.

[runamok27]

On 4/19/2020 at 9:38 AM, TheDark said:

Probably because most people understand the gravity of the situation. 

 

Those who don't will be culled. These groups include the funeral goers in Bangladesh, Church goers in USA and other anti-vaccine people who burn down 5G base stations, eg the people who has decided to go against scientific evidence what has been laid in front of them.

 

And I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. It's just means renewal of the world population, probably for the better. 

 

As more data pours in the, the scientific data as you call it, the projections and the reality is changing rapidly. If you are going to believe the science when it leads to dire predictions of death and destruction why would you not believe the science when it doesn't lead to dire predictions of death and destruction? The science started with predictions of 10's maybe even 100's of millions of deaths, then it went to just millions, then just hundreds of thousands. The science once again predicted a death rate of 10%+, then it was 5%, then it was 3%, then it was 2% now it's about 1% and change but other studies are being done that are saying that the infection rate could be 50 to 80 times higher then the reported infection rate. Those numbers would bring the fatality rate down way below 1%, in fact, it brings it down to the regular flu and below. I find it funny that people tout the science when it agrees with them but disregards the science when it doesn't.

[chessman]

33 minutes ago, Logosone said:

If you want to test the healhty, by all means do so. If they then test positive for SARS Cov2, by all means isolate them.

 

Don't isolate the healthy from the healthy. It's madness.

It’s madness if you had the capacity to do the testing. But we didn’t.

 

the reasoning is that you isolate people for the time it takes to improve your testing (and many other things), then start to open up. This is what is happening.   It was very cautious (but then most people would be very cautious if 1000s+ of lives rested on their decisions) but hardly madness.

[Logosone]

40 minutes ago, chessman said:

It’s madness if you had the capacity to do the testing. But we didn’t.

 

the reasoning is that you isolate people for the time it takes to improve your testing (and many other things), then start to open up. This is what is happening.   It was very cautious (but then most people would be very cautious if 1000s+ of lives rested on their decisions) but hardly madness.

 

When the virus came nobody had the capacity for testing. Nobody. However as soon as the virus genome was published a single German company produced 1.4 million test kits in 4 weeks, South Korean companies produced a great number of test kits.

 

The UK could have done the same. UK biotech companies were offering their tests, but PHE refused to use them. 

 

There is now a reliable antibody test the UK has put in a huge order for. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8257233/Government-orders-50million-game-changing-immunity-tests.html

 

So even the UK now has the capacity for mass testing. Has the UK government ended the lockdown? No.

 

To continue to isolate the healthy from the healthy while destroying and ruining the economy is madness. It's not rational thinking.

[johnnybangkok]

44 minutes ago, runamok27 said:

As more data pours in the, the scientific data as you call it, the projections and the reality is changing rapidly. If you are going to believe the science when it leads to dire predictions of death and destruction why would you not believe the science when it doesn't lead to dire predictions of death and destruction? The science started with predictions of 10's maybe even 100's of millions of deaths, then it went to just millions, then just hundreds of thousands. The science once again predicted a death rate of 10%+, then it was 5%, then it was 3%, then it was 2% now it's about 1% and change but other studies are being done that are saying that the infection rate could be 50 to 80 times higher then the reported infection rate. Those numbers would bring the fatality rate down way below 1%, in fact, it brings it down to the regular flu and below. I find it funny that people tout the science when it agrees with them but disregards the science when it doesn't.

You shoud be thanking self-isolation then. THATS whats kept the figures down. If left to it's own devices deaths could have certainly been in the millions.

And flu kills between 250-500,000 people worldwide per year (https://www.medscape.com/answers/219557-3459/what-is-the-global-incidence-of-influenza). That works out at between 20,000 and 41,000 per month. So far Covid has killed approx. 200,000 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?" \l "countries) in the space of 2 months WITH lockdown. Also, mortality through flu is widely accepted as 0.1%, so even at 1% (a hotly disputed number), that meakes C19 10 times deadlier than the flu.

Why are you people not getting this? It's really not that difficult. 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

The difference with drink driving is very obvious. 

 

A drunk driver is intoxicated. With isolation of the healthy the opposite is the case, the healthy and unaffected are asked to self-isolate.

 

Hardly the same thing. What is being asked is more like asking EVERYONE not to drive because a small percentage maybe drunk and there may be accidents. Most people can see the lunacy in this approach.

 

If you want to test the healhty, by all means do so. If they then test positive for SARS Cov2, by all means isolate them.

 

Don't isolate the healthy from the healthy. It's madness.

And the difference with all the other suggestions I've made? Or are you just going to cherry pick that one?

My point was in reply to a suggestion that everyone is adult enough to 'do the right thing'. If that's correct then we wouldn'ty need laws or regulations or oversight or anything else that keeps society together.  

[cornishcarlos]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

There is now a reliable antibody test the UK has put in a huge order for. 

 

Just as WHO claim there is no evidence that infection provides immunity from re-infection...

 

Man this is one economic disaster after another... 

[johnnybangkok]

16 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

When the virus came nobody had the capacity for testing. Nobody. However as soon as the virus genome was published a single German company produced 1.4 million test kits in 4 weeks, South Korean companies produced a great number of test kits.

 

The UK could have done the same. UK biotech companies were offering their tests, but PHE refused to use them. 

 

There is now a reliable antibody test the UK has put in a huge order for. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8257233/Government-orders-50million-game-changing-immunity-tests.html

 

So even the UK now has the capacity for mass testing. Has the UK government ended the lockdown? No.

 

To continue to isolate the healthy from the healthy while destroying and ruining the economy is madness. It's not rational thinking.

Wrong. 

On 16 January, the South Korean biotech executive Chun Jong-yoon grasped the reality unfolding in China and directed his lab to work to stem the virus’s inevitable spread; within days, his team developed detection kits now in high demand around the world (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/20/south-korea-rapid-intrusive-measures-covid-19).

We have gone over this so many times it's beginning to sound like a broken record. We both agree that testing, identifying and isolating is the best way to combat this virus but where we differ is what to do if you CAN'T test. You think it should be 'business as usual' often quoting the Swedish model, whereas I and many others (including most governemnts and top experts) believe the if it wasn't for self-isolation, this virus would have run amok and deaths in the UK and other countries would be in their 100's of thousand rather than the 10's of thousands it currently is.

The UK and other countries are desperately trying to ramp up testing because they know they have been sorely lacking in this area as both S. Korea and Taiwan have shown the benefit of early detection and rapid response BUT as stated many, many, many times, there's no use crying over spilled milk. The damage has already been done and the only way to mitigate the deaths is isolation.

Heads will roll though as a country like the UK with some of the best medical facilities and medical professionals in the world should have been much better preapred for this. 

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, runamok27 said:

As more data pours in the, the scientific data as you call it, the projections and the reality is changing rapidly. If you are going to believe the science when it leads to dire predictions of death and destruction why would you not believe the science when it doesn't lead to dire predictions of death and destruction? The science started with predictions of 10's maybe even 100's of millions of deaths, then it went to just millions, then just hundreds of thousands. The science once again predicted a death rate of 10%+, then it was 5%, then it was 3%, then it was 2% now it's about 1% and change but other studies are being done that are saying that the infection rate could be 50 to 80 times higher then the reported infection rate. Those numbers would bring the fatality rate down way below 1%, in fact, it brings it down to the regular flu and below. I find it funny that people tout the science when it agrees with them but disregards the science when it doesn't.

Think about the rate of contagion, the impact on an already overburdened and under resourced  health system which risks collapse, do think they are building field hospitals for the exercise?

 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Wrong. 

On 16 January, the South Korean biotech executive Chun Jong-yoon grasped the reality unfolding in China and directed his lab to work to stem the virus’s inevitable spread; within days, his team developed detection kits now in high demand around the world (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/20/south-korea-rapid-intrusive-measures-covid-19).

We have gone over this so many times it's beginning to sound like a broken record. We both agree that testing, identifying and isolating is the best way to combat this virus but where we differ is what to do if you CAN'T test. You think it should be 'business as usual' often quoting the Swedish model, whereas I and many others (including most governemnts and top experts) believe the if it wasn't for self-isolation, this virus would have run amok and deaths in the UK and other countries would be in their 100's of thousand rather than the 10's of thousands it currently is.

The UK and other countries are desperately trying to ramp up testing because they know they have been sorely lacking in this area as both S. Korea and Taiwan have shown the benefit of early detection and rapid response BUT as stated many, many, many times, there's no use crying over spilled milk. The damage has already been done and the only way to mitigate the deaths is isolation.

Heads will roll though as a country like the UK with some of the best medical facilities and medical professionals in the world should have been much better preapred for this. 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I said that South Korean companies produced test kits. You quoting an exec confirming that this happened confirms exactly what I said. That South Korean and German companies produced the test kits, ie they were not just available magically for South Korean and Germany. 

 

The UK too had biotech companies offering to do test kits but PHE refused to use them over exaggerated safety concerns, like the CDC in the US. The UK too could have produced a large number of test kits, but PHE, like the CDC, initially stopped that from happening. Just like PHE stopped a deal with South Korea to buy test kits because PHE did not get round to testing them on time.

 

If it had not been for incompetent decision making in the UK, mainly by PHE, then the UK, like German, like South Korea, would have had test kits.

 

Heads should definitely roll in the UK. The government and its agencies decisions cost lives.

 

So where we actually disagree is that the UK could not do testing, it could have done.

 

The notion that hundreds of thousands would have died without social distancing is frankly ludcrious and devoid of any evidence whatsoever. When you have detailed studies that say this let me know. Until then not even worth discussing.

 

Social distancing is useful at the start of a pandemic, much less so once a virus has spread. And of course once people are allowed to mingle again the virus will just return. Not much benefit, except a little delay, best case scenario.

 

And of course it's worth checking how this milk got spilled, to make sure this kind of milk is not spilled ever again, because this particular milk spillage cost a few billion Dollars, Euro and Pounds.

 

 

[chessman]

58 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The notion that hundreds of thousands would have died without social distancing is frankly ludcrious and devoid of any evidence whatsoever. When you have detailed studies that say this let me know. Until then not even worth discussing.

Give your most conservative estimates, what is the R0 number of this virus without social distancing and what is the mortality rate?

[Logosone]

13 hours ago, chessman said:

Give your most conservative estimates, what is the R0 number of this virus without social distancing and what is the mortality rate?

We just don't know exactly, however, the evidence from China where they tried to determine the effect of a particular social distancing measure, travel restrictions, is that firstly to the extent it was discernible it was a very small effect, it was most notable at the start but evaporated towards the end, and in any event it was impossible to determine a specific effect in transmission reduction because various different containment measures were tangled up together and thrown at the virus at the same time.

 

I therefore doubt we will see really credible figures on how effective social distancing was, ie academic studies that really examine this. There is simply not enough data. 

 

All there is is health authority figures. As we know they never caught the real number of cases, how do you then determine a negative, who did not get the virus because of testing and isolating or because of social distancing? Very hard to do.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Great idea. And why we're at it why don't we just let people drink drive? Or not wear seat belts or decide what medical treatment they should/shouldn't have or whether they send their kids to school or pay/not pay their taxes or obey/not obey the law?

I mean they are all responsible adults so I can't see how it could go wrong.

Drink drivers kill other people. It would be unreasonable to expect those afraid of drunk drivers to never go anywhere. Not wear seatbelts- absolutely. No free health care if it all goes wrong though, and if a child is injured because responsible adult does not strap them in arrested and charged with endangering a child. Don't wear m'bike helmet if don't want to, but again no free health care. BTW I use seat belts and m'bike helmet.

Far as I know people do have a choice with health care.

Children are not capable of making informed decisions so have to be required to go to school. At 16 they can decide if they want to continue.

Not pay taxes- wish that were true.

Not obey the law- many laws are unnecessary IMO. Only need one criminal law- if one hurts another by any means at all they should be prosecuted and if convicted receive punishment that fits the crime.

 

Yes, IMO treat adults as responsible for themselves- eg if they want to use any sort of drugs let them do so, but if they hurt anyone else while under influence see previous paragraph.

 

PS Thailand in effect does what I like. Can do most things unless it all goes wrong. Eg can speed even if law says a limit, but if one has an accident while speeding and kills someone, one is in the real doodoo.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Logosone said:

The notion that hundreds of thousands would have died without social distancing is frankly ludcrious and devoid of any evidence whatsoever.

Governments need the population to believe that else they have no mandate for lockdowns. We in NZ are constantly told on radio ads we are saving lives by lockdown and social distancing. I have no idea if they have any facts to justify it. People I talk to certainly believe it. I don't try and discuss it as they are closed minded on the subject.

I have middle aged fit friends convinced that they will die if they catch it:-(

[johnnybangkok]

17 hours ago, Logosone said:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I said that South Korean companies produced test kits. You quoting an exec confirming that this happened confirms exactly what I said. That South Korean and German companies produced the test kits, ie they were not just available magically for South Korean and Germany. 

 

The UK too had biotech companies offering to do test kits but PHE refused to use them over exaggerated safety concerns, like the CDC in the US. The UK too could have produced a large number of test kits, but PHE, like the CDC, initially stopped that from happening. Just like PHE stopped a deal with South Korea to buy test kits because PHE did not get round to testing them on time.

 

If it had not been for incompetent decision making in the UK, mainly by PHE, then the UK, like German, like South Korea, would have had test kits.

 

Heads should definitely roll in the UK. The government and its agencies decisions cost lives.

 

So where we actually disagree is that the UK could not do testing, it could have done.

 

The notion that hundreds of thousands would have died without social distancing is frankly ludcrious and devoid of any evidence whatsoever. When you have detailed studies that say this let me know. Until then not even worth discussing.

 

Social distancing is useful at the start of a pandemic, much less so once a virus has spread. And of course once people are allowed to mingle again the virus will just return. Not much benefit, except a little delay, best case scenario.

 

And of course it's worth checking how this milk got spilled, to make sure this kind of milk is not spilled ever again, because this particular milk spillage cost a few billion Dollars, Euro and Pounds.

 

 

Fair point well made.

We can disagree on the social distancing thing but I wholeheartedly agree that heads should roll in the UK. Complete farce from start to finish. 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Drink drivers kill other people. It would be unreasonable to expect those afraid of drunk drivers to never go anywhere. Not wear seatbelts- absolutely. No free health care if it all goes wrong though, and if a child is injured because responsible adult does not strap them in arrested and charged with endangering a child. Don't wear m'bike helmet if don't want to, but again no free health care. BTW I use seat belts and m'bike helmet.

Far as I know people do have a choice with health care.

Children are not capable of making informed decisions so have to be required to go to school. At 16 they can decide if they want to continue.

Not pay taxes- wish that were true.

Not obey the law- many laws are unnecessary IMO. Only need one criminal law- if one hurts another by any means at all they should be prosecuted and if convicted receive punishment that fits the crime.

 

Yes, IMO treat adults as responsible for themselves- eg if they want to use any sort of drugs let them do so, but if they hurt anyone else while under influence see previous paragraph.

 

PS Thailand in effect does what I like. Can do most things unless it all goes wrong. Eg can speed even if law says a limit, but if one has an accident while speeding and kills someone, one is in the real doodoo.

 

Wow. You are all in with this 'all power to the people' thing aren't you?

The whole idea of laws and regulations is that people aren't responsible enough to govern themselves so need laws to keep them straight. But yes, if it was only themselves that were affected then off you go BUT the main issue is their actions DON'T just affect them personally. People don't purposely go out and get in a car crash, but it happens and it can affect other people so laws are in place to minimise this. 

Yes 'it would be unreasonable to expect those afraid of drunk drivers to never go anywhere.' so we put restrictions on the drink driver. Yes 'if they want to use any sort of drugs let them do so, but if they hurt anyone else while under influence see previous', is mitigated by laws and restrictions on the one potentially doing the harm. 

So lets just extrapolate your theory out using the same logic. Instead of self-isolating, you decide to not, going about your day like any other normal day. On your daily walk you bump into an elderly lady (who also doesn't believe in self-isolation) and inadvertantly give her Covid (as unbeknowst to you, you are a carrier). Said lady then dies. It's obvious you are responsible so are you happy to get charged with manslaughter? You did after all cause her death when you clearly had a choice not to.  

Your whole posts advocating 'those that wish to isolate are entirely able to do so on their own, without the nanny state treating us like we are all incompetents that have to be locked up whether it is necessary or not' is just not true. I would counter that there are a lot of 'incompetents' out there and though you may not fall into that category yourself, there are too many of them to just let everyone do whatever the hell they want. The good of the whole has to superced the needs of the few, until such a time when the needs of the few can be accommodated again.     

[Logosone]

So turns out Neil Ferguson has got it badly wrong before:

 

Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University said Prof Ferguson was previously instrumental in modelling that led to the cull of more than 6 million animals during the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, which left rural Britain economically devastated. Then, Prof Ferguson and his Imperial colleagues concluded: 'Extensive culling is sadly the only option for controlling the current British epidemic.' But Prof Thrusfield, an expert in animal diseases, claimed the model made incorrect assumptions about how foot and mouth disease was transmitted and, in a 2006 review, he claimed Imperial's foot and mouth model was 'not fit for purpose', while in 2011 he said it was 'severely flawed'. Prof Thrusfield told The Daily Telegraph the episode was 'a cautionary tale' about the limits of mathematical modelling and he felt a sense of 'déjà vu' about the current situation.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8258043/Professor-Neil-Ferguson-warns-100-000-UK-coronavirus-deaths-lockdown-lifted-soon.html

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Wow. You are all in with this 'all power to the people' thing aren't you?

The whole idea of laws and regulations is that people aren't responsible enough to govern themselves so need laws to keep them straight. But yes, if it was only themselves that were affected then off you go BUT the main issue is their actions DON'T just affect them personally. People don't purposely go out and get in a car crash, but it happens and it can affect other people so laws are in place to minimise this. 

Yes 'it would be unreasonable to expect those afraid of drunk drivers to never go anywhere.' so we put restrictions on the drink driver. Yes 'if they want to use any sort of drugs let them do so, but if they hurt anyone else while under influence see previous', is mitigated by laws and restrictions on the one potentially doing the harm. 

So lets just extrapolate your theory out using the same logic. Instead of self-isolating, you decide to not, going about your day like any other normal day. On your daily walk you bump into an elderly lady (who also doesn't believe in self-isolation) and inadvertantly give her Covid (as unbeknowst to you, you are a carrier). Said lady then dies. It's obvious you are responsible so are you happy to get charged with manslaughter? You did after all cause her death when you clearly had a choice not to.  

Your whole posts advocating 'those that wish to isolate are entirely able to do so on their own, without the nanny state treating us like we are all incompetents that have to be locked up whether it is necessary or not' is just not true. I would counter that there are a lot of 'incompetents' out there and though you may not fall into that category yourself, there are too many of them to just let everyone do whatever the hell they want. The good of the whole has to superced the needs of the few, until such a time when the needs of the few can be accommodated again.     

I think all these drink driving / manslaughter analogies are not terribly helpful, or indeed relevant.

 

We've seen when Sweden asked its own people to self isolate, that's what they did, by and large, there were no chaotic scenes like in the US where women started fights with shoppers because of social distancing hysteria, or like in the UK where people spat at police officers and were chased with drones.

 

You can trust people more than you fear. Not all, there is never perfection, but Sweden survived intact.