Coronavirus Pandemic

[LDG]

I guess an issue here is that none of us have been through a pandemic before, we don't really know what it's like.
We have Hollywood-fuelled ideas of piles of body bags and so on, in real life pandemics are rarely like that.

I don’t think many think its all a hoax, there is a virus, and like flu it kills people.

What has always been the bone of contention, is the statistics, and the consistency of the approach to those statistics, and the truthfulness of how this shit all came to pass in the first place.

If we are to judge the scale of the pandemic, you have to speak in broad terms, and simply most statistics support a relatively low death rate as a whole, which decreases the younger/healthier you are, and what society you live in.

The usual pandemic curve is pretty evident, and if you removed all and any lockdown measures, you would see that curve do the same thing over a longer term as any other virus. But you can’t present reliable data with unreliable and/or inconsistent samples.

As a novel virus, it is bound to attack the weak faster (old/ill), therefore you would expect a steep curver of deaths and infections. Then as the immune systems we’re built with start making micemeat of it (see all of the asymptomatic nippers) society will naturally deal with it.

The severity is biased because of how it is reported. The impact is as a result of a new virus in town.

The impact of reacting to it in the way we have is arguably more damaging than the virus itself, and the you can find out for yourself why that is by watching who benefits from all of this.

In the meantime, a vaccine either buys the fucked up health system time, or it’s a gamble. But it all boils down to the society we live in. I bet the plague victims would gladly swap with us right now.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don’t think many think its all a hoax, there is a virus, and like flu it kills people.

What has always been the bone of contention, is the statistics, and the consistency of the approach to those statistics, and the truthfulness of how this shit all came to pass in the first place.

If we are to judge the scale of the pandemic, you have to speak in broad terms, and simply most statistics support a relatively low death rate as a whole, which decreases the younger/healthier you are, and what society you live in.

The usual pandemic curve is pretty evident, and if you removed all and any lockdown measures, you would see that curve do the same thing over a longer term as any other virus. But you can’t present reliable data with unreliable and/or inconsistent samples.

As a novel virus, it is bound to attack the weak faster (old/ill), therefore you would expect a steep curver of deaths and infections. Then as the immune systems we’re built with start making micemeat of it (see all of the asymptomatic nippers) bringing it home at the moment.

The severity is biased because of how it is reported. The impact is as a result of a new virus in town.

The impact of reacting to it in the way we have is arguably more damaging than the virus itself, and the you can find out for yourself why that is by watching who benefits from all of this.

The point is, this is not

You are trying to apply common sense and the old (real) science in the face of woke. Will never work.

[Letters]

Do you have kids? At school?

The boy's at nursery. They have bubbled each of the 3 classes but there's no social distancing going on. I don't think there is in any school - there may be a nod to it here and there but the playground at the boy's school which the nursery is part of is a free for all.
Secondary schools may be different although the face covering thing was always guidance, not mandatory.

How can schools be doing one thing (provided they aren't private schools), and Wimbledon be doing another

I'm not sure that's a like for like comparison, but Wembley was half full last night and I didn't see much social distancing going on so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Niall_Quinn]

The boy's at nursery. They have bubbled each of the 3 classes but there's no social distancing going on. I don't think there is in any school - there may be a nod to it here and there but the playground at the boy's school which the nursery is part of is a free for all.
Secondary schools may be different although the face covering thing was always guidance, not mandatory.


I'm not sure that's a like for like comparison, but Wembley was half full last night and I didn't see much social distancing going on so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Just proving you know fuck all. I'm not denying there are still schools where sanity has a fingerhold - God bless those brave head teachers and the staff. But don't assume it's all schools or even many schools.

[IBK]

I don’t think many think its all a hoax, there is a virus, and like flu it kills people.

What has always been the bone of contention, is the statistics, and the consistency of the approach to those statistics, and the truthfulness of how this shit all came to pass in the first place.

If we are to judge the scale of the pandemic, you have to speak in broad terms, and simply most statistics support a relatively low death rate as a whole, which decreases the younger/healthier you are, and what society you live in.

The usual pandemic curve is pretty evident, and if you removed all and any lockdown measures, you would see that curve do the same thing over a longer term as any other virus. But you can’t present reliable data with unreliable and/or inconsistent samples.

As a novel virus, it is bound to attack the weak faster (old/ill), therefore you would expect a steep curver of deaths and infections. Then as the immune systems we’re built with start making micemeat of it (see all of the asymptomatic nippers) society will naturally deal with it.

The severity is biased because of how it is reported. The impact is as a result of a new virus in town.

The impact of reacting to it in the way we have is arguably more damaging than the virus itself, and the you can find out for yourself why that is by watching who benefits from all of this.

In the meantime, a vaccine either buys the fucked up health system time, or it’s a gamble. But it all boils down to the society we live in. I bet the plague victims would gladly swap with us right now.

Very

For me the real crisis was that the NHS couldn't cope with admissions for those suffering from the virus. This is not to say that the accelerated deaths of a large number of perople susceptible to the virus (largely because of pre-existing conditions) was mispreported or to downplay the tragedy for those affected directly.

The fact that the press continue to be obsessed with the daily infection rates for a virus that by and large is now leading to very few deaths is a joke. We aren't told how many people catch flu every day, and this information is meaningless. We should continue to be careful to wash our hands and be aware of situations where we might catch it (as you are, say in a packed tube carriage where someone is coughing and sneezing), but the over sensitivity to a virus that will from now on simply be part of everyday life is as you say both unwarranted and potentially damaging in many other ways.

[Letters]

I don’t think many think its all a hoax, there is a virus, and like flu it kills people.

What has always been the bone of contention, is the statistics, and the consistency of the approach to those statistics, and the truthfulness of how this shit all came to pass in the first place.

If we are to judge the scale of the pandemic, you have to speak in broad terms, and simply most statistics support a relatively low death rate as a whole, which decreases the younger/healthier you are, and what society you live in.

Basically correct.
But the Case Fatality Rate is significantly higher than the flu.
And while yes, it certainly is more fatal for older people, the ICU doctor I was talking to told me that many people who were in hospital over the last winter were in their 40s and 50s. I know two people around that age who got it and fine, they didn't die but it knocked them sideways for months.
Lots of statistics have been flying around but the hospitalisations and all cause mortality over the last winter were not like a regular flu season. The mortality rate was about 24% above the average by Christmas and peaked at something like 34% mid-Feb. Cases aren't a good metric, obviously as you ramp up testing you'll find more cases. But all cause mortality is hard to argue with and the hospitals were choc full.

The severity is biased because of how it is reported. The impact is as a result of a new virus in town.

Well, there is something to that. But there has been an impact and I'd suggest it was a situation which required a response.

The impact of reacting to it in the way we have is arguably more damaging than the virus itself, and the you can find out for yourself why that is by watching who benefits from all of this.

Well, I pretty much agree about that. I think the government have handled this all wrong. Some of the restrictions put in place have been pointless and inconsistent. Other times they've reacted too slowly and not imposed restrictions quickly enough. It's debatable how effective Lockdowns are - obviously a proper lockdown where everyone is literally locked away would be effective. A virus can't spread if you aren't meeting people. But in a complicated society that isn't possible, people will still be mixing here and there so at best it can only slow down the spread. And the effects of lockdown on people's mental health - and physical health with missed appointments, missed treatments and opportunities for diagnoses. I'd argue that yes, those effects are probably worse than the pandemic. Maybe a shorter, stricter lockdown would have been better but it's almost impossible to know for sure. You could look at what other countries did I guess but different cultures, different population densities, it's really hard to compare like for like.

It does feel like things are better now. It's great so see crowds back at football and pretty much everything is open. Things aren't "normal", but it's getting there. This autumn and winter is the big test, that's when we'll see whether the vaccine is doing what it should.

[Niall_Quinn]

Very

For me the real crisis was that the NHS couldn't cope with admissions for those suffering from the virus. This is not to say that the accelerated deaths of a large number of perople susceptible to the virus (largely because of pre-existing conditions) was mispreported or to downplay the tragedy for those affected directly.

The fact that the press continue to be obsessed with the daily infection rates for a virus that by and large is now leading to very few deaths is a joke. We aren't told how many people catch flu every day, and this information is meaningless. We should continue to be careful to wash our hands and be aware of situations where we might catch it (as you are, say in a packed tube carriage where someone is coughing and sneezing), but the over sensitivity to a virus that will from now on simply be part of everyday life is as you say both unwarranted and potentially damaging in many other ways.

Even more outrageous is the ridiculous notion that politicians and business leaders would EVER compromise their marketplaces and the status quo simply to save relatively small number of elderly and sick people from disease. These are the same people that dole out pitiful pensions and have abandoned the elderly to the rapacious "care" system that cleans out every last resource that people worked their lives to secure. These are the same people who allowed the BBC to hound pensioners. That have run down NHS care services while pouring cash into non-care resources. The same people who rob the elderly through inflation. Who won't police the streets.

Anyone who imagines for a second the elites give a fuck about the elderly simply refuses to pay attention to the reality. And they topped it all off by clearing out the hospitals into the care homes and then failed to provide resources and guidance, effectively murder.

Shutting down their precious economy to save the elderly. Who could possibly buy such a preposterous claim?

As a pure, pure coincidence, the billionaires have raked it in from covid while all their competition had been pushed to the wall. Pure coincidence of course.

It was all about saving lives. Definitely. Who could ever doubt the integrity of a politician or the CEO of a bank?

[Letters]

Of course it wasn’t a coincidence. In any crisis there’s money to be made.
But it’s a bit of a leap from there to thinking that the crisis was manufactured so that rich people could rake it in.

I’m not convinced the government are competent enough to do that.

[LDG]

Basically correct.
But the Case Fatality Rate is significantly higher than the flu.
And while yes, it certainly is more fatal for older people, the ICU doctor I was talking to told me that many people who were in hospital over the last winter were in their 40s and 50s. I know two people around that age who got it and fine, they didn't die but it knocked them sideways for months.
Lots of statistics have been flying around but the hospitalisations and all cause mortality over the last winter were not like a regular flu season. The mortality rate was about 24% above the average by Christmas and peaked at something like 34% mid-Feb. Cases aren't a good metric, obviously as you ramp up testing you'll find more cases. But all cause mortality is hard to argue with and the hospitals were choc full.


Well, there is something to that. But there has been an impact and I'd suggest it was a situation which required a response.



Well, I pretty much agree about that. I think the government have handled this all wrong. Some of the restrictions put in place have been pointless and inconsistent. Other times they've reacted too slowly and not imposed restrictions quickly enough. It's debatable how effective Lockdowns are - obviously a proper lockdown where everyone is literally locked away would be effective. A virus can't spread if you aren't meeting people. But in a complicated society that isn't possible, people will still be mixing here and there so at best it can only slow down the spread. And the effects of lockdown on people's mental health - and physical health with missed appointments, missed treatments and opportunities for diagnoses. I'd argue that yes, those effects are probably worse than the pandemic. Maybe a shorter, stricter lockdown would have been better but it's almost impossible to know for sure. You could look at what other countries did I guess but different cultures, different population densities, it's really hard to compare like for like.

It does feel like things are better now. It's great so see crowds back at football and pretty much everything is open. Things aren't "normal", but it's getting there. This autumn and winter is the big test, that's when we'll see whether the vaccine is doing what it should.

Fatality rates will be higher than flu because it’s a new virus.

Once our inbuilt immune systems suffocate it, it will be no more deadly than flu I’m sure. Mutations will lead to problems, but my argument is that the unfortunate death toll at the hands of the virus is preferable (if it can be said in such blasé terms) to the complete change to society and the powers that have been assumed in the name of the virus.

You shouldn’t be blind to what had been given up because the long term effects of such power gifting are to the detriment of 95% of society. Thats a little higher than 1 in a hundred deaths if you catch the thing now.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course it wasn’t a coincidence. In any crisis there’s money to be made.
But it’s a bit of a leap from there to thinking that the crisis was manufactured so that rich people could rake it in.

I’m not convinced the government are competent enough to do that.

It is a bit of a leap, but not something I said. So you have leapt alone. Hello over there.