China Coronavirus

[Smurfy123]

Yes pay them. Give them extra whatever it takes.
Look at the money they have spent locking everyone down. It would have been a fraction of the cost to pay the over 60s.

[thewobbler]

No Leo, scientists are not one great homogenous body.

Nor are governments.

Nor are media.

But the groupings are easily understood, and as such save typing out dozens of words to achieve the same end meaning, unless of course you come across someone petty..

[trailer]

Radio how do you know lockdown saved life's? Are you listening to all the bullshitters at these press briefings? They have got everything wrong.
Now the first place that should have been on lockdown was carehomes. Nobody in nobody out.
Radio what's with the abuse calm down it's a discussion board

He doesn't.

He is, for whatever reasons, a Covid zealot.


Trying to get him to admit that there this a complex and grey scenario where nobody has definitive answers, is like asking a Christian hardliner to concede that God may not exist.

So in this complex and grey scenario do you advocate caution and trying to prepare or just see how it goes?

Look we have gone down a path now. Whether I agreed with that path or not doesn't matter, I've followed it closely. That's what's citizens should do. So we should see it out.

But I should never be construed as the worry for scientists. I don't accept any situation as black and white, and when future pandemics come along, I'll address them with an open mind.

The problem is, not everyone is open minded. There is a sizeable population who will literally believe anything they hear, and follow any direction they are told, as long as they trust the source. Even if that source is as consistent as a runny turd; they will still follow.

Governments and media will not trust science after this. There will be dozens of studies of Sweden's approach undertaken in the next 5 years and each of them will produce different findings. Not different good. But different enough for politicians and the media to pay less heed to scientific advice.


As such, what I would advocate is that the scientific community is a but more honest, starting now, about what they know. To reflect inwardly that maybe they don't know everything.

Are "Scientists" as one great homogeneous body claiming they have all the answers?

If whichever Government came out and said "we don't know if this will work but sure we will give it a go" what would that do to compliance levels and how would the effectiveness of the measures then be critiqued for future pandemics?

Scientists definitely got this one wrong. What did Trump call the WHO? China's Foreign relation agency? There's a lot of truth in that.

[J70]

Radio how do you know lockdown saved life's? Are you listening to all the bullshitters at these press briefings? They have got everything wrong.
Now the first place that should have been on lockdown was carehomes. Nobody in nobody out.
Radio what's with the abuse calm down it's a discussion board

He doesn't.

He is, for whatever reasons, a Covid zealot.


Trying to get him to admit that there this a complex and grey scenario where nobody has definitive answers, is like asking a Christian hardliner to concede that God may not exist.

So in this complex and grey scenario do you advocate caution and trying to prepare or just see how it goes?

Look we have gone down a path now. Whether I agreed with that path or not doesn't matter, I've followed it closely. That's what's citizens should do. So we should see it out.

But I should never be construed as the worry for scientists. I don't accept any situation as black and white, and when future pandemics come along, I'll address them with an open mind.

The problem is, not everyone is open minded. There is a sizeable population who will literally believe anything they hear, and follow any direction they are told, as long as they trust the source. Even if that source is as consistent as a runny turd; they will still follow.

Governments and media will not trust science after this. There will be dozens of studies of Sweden's approach undertaken in the next 5 years and each of them will produce different findings. Not different good. But different enough for politicians and the media to pay less heed to scientific advice.


As such, what I would advocate is that the scientific community is a bit more honest, starting now, about what they know. To reflect inwardly that maybe they don't know everything. To begin building bridges, whether they think they are needed now or not. To err is human.

What scientists have you been listening to?

Any I've listened to, both in this and in the past (I've a pretty strong scientific education and maintain a keen interest in various fields, both professionally and out of personal interest) are generally very humble about the provisional nature of science in general and the limitations of what we know at any point in an unfolding event such as a pandemic of a novel virus. Science is an endeavor in which knowledge is accumulated in spurts, little by little, by ruling things out.

And just who do you propose we turn to in the future when responding to natural disasters if scientists have supposedly squandered the goodwill of the public?

Priests? Witch doctors?

[RadioGAAGAA]

Radio how do you know lockdown saved life's?

At this point - I don't know what else can be said. Your an idiot - and that's not an insult, its an observation.

Radio what's with the abuse calm down it's a discussion board

My threshold for dealing with idiots stops long before your level.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Trying to get him to admit that there this a complex and grey scenario where nobody has definitive answers, is like asking a Christian hardliner to concede that God may not exist.

Are you for real?

This is a very complex situation.

I'm simplifying a great deal here and its still light years beyond yourself and Smurfy.


Find any posts of mine that claims to have a definitive all encompassing way through this.

[thewobbler]

J70 I'm not dismissing the role of scientists.

I'm dismissing the potential for a cauldron of scientists to influence the closure of borders/economies in future, as they have done on this occasion.

And I'm suggesting that if these same experts could now admit they jumped to conclusions, and inform that next time they will have a more measured approach, it might actually benefit their profession.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Although you will never be able to produce the data to back this up, you will never admit even a tiniest morsel of doubt in what you believe in.

Well, lets look at somewhere that didn't introduce lockdown early enough.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3075002/coronavirus-italys-hospitals-overflow-dead-toll-tops-1000

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/09/italian-hospitals-short-beds-coronavirus-death-toll-jumps

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-crisis-doctors-death-toll-hospital-latest-a9430551.html

https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/20/italy-suffocated-by-coronavirus-the-story-of-patients-and-doctors-in-the-grip-of-covid-19


But of course, probably not sufficient in your eyes.

[lenny]

Radio how do you know lockdown saved life's? Are you listening to all the bullshitters at these press briefings? They have got everything wrong.
Now the first place that should have been on lockdown was carehomes. Nobody in nobody out.
Radio what's with the abuse calm down it's a discussion board

He doesn't.

He is, for whatever reasons, a Covid zealot.


Trying to get him to admit that there this a complex and grey scenario where nobody has definitive answers, is like asking a Christian hardliner to concede that God may not exist.

So in this complex and grey scenario do you advocate caution and trying to prepare or just see how it goes?

Look we have gone down a path now. Whether I agreed with that path or not doesn't matter, I've followed it closely. That's what's citizens should do. So we should see it out.

But I should never be construed as the worry for scientists. I don't accept any situation as black and white, and when future pandemics come along, I'll address them with an open mind.

The problem is, not everyone is open minded. There is a sizeable population who will literally believe anything they hear, and follow any direction they are told, as long as they trust the source. Even if that source is as consistent as a runny turd; they will still follow.

Governments and media will not trust science after this. There will be dozens of studies of Sweden's approach undertaken in the next 5 years and each of them will produce different findings. Not different good. But different enough for politicians and the media to pay less heed to scientific advice.


As such, what I would advocate is that the scientific community is a bit more honest, starting now, about what they know. To reflect inwardly that maybe they don't know everything. To begin building bridges, whether they think they are needed now or not. To err is human.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/trust-in-scientists-grows-as-fake-coronavirus-news-rises-uk-poll-finds
Looks like more people are starting to have faith in scientists after all and rightly so. It's not scientists who've got us into this mess, it's politicians. In countries where politicians have taken the correct precautionary advice from scientists and been less worried about the economic impact those countries have had tremendous success in combating the pandemic.

[RadioGAAGAA]

J70 I'm not dismissing the role of scientists.

Yes you are.

You are also doing it from a position of total ignorance.

J70 I'm not dismissing the role of scientists.

I'm dismissing the potential for a cauldron of scientists to influence the closure of borders/economies in future, as they have done on this occasion.

What is dismissing the influence of if not dismissing the opinion of?

And I'm suggesting that if these same experts could now admit they jumped to conclusions, and inform that next time they will have a more measured approach, it might actually benefit their profession.

ITS AN EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.

Do you understand what that means?


If the UK & Ire had shutdown in mid-Feb, banned ski trips to Italy and enforced strict quarantine on all inbound travellers - we'd already be out the far side of this and in a position similar to New Zealand.

As far as viral epidemics/pandemics go - the earlier & stronger you act, the better it is. That is a maxim that will never change.

[J70]

J70 I'm not dismissing the role of scientists.

I'm dismissing the potential for a cauldron of scientists to influence the closure of borders/economies in future, as they have done on this occasion.

And I'm suggesting that if these same experts could now admit they jumped to conclusions, and inform that next time they will have a more measured approach, it might actually benefit their profession.

Jumped to what conclusions?

What would a "measured approach" entail and on what would they have based recommendations for such?

[RadioGAAGAA]

As such, what I would advocate is that the scientific community is a bit more honest, starting now, about what they know. To reflect inwardly that maybe they don't know everything. To begin building bridges, whether they think they are needed now or not. To err is human.

That is a laugh.

If any of those in front of a camera were to start listing off their assumptions and caveats in drawing their inferences, your head would melt before they got 3 mins in... my head would melt never mind yours!


... and 99.99999% of people would have ignored the crux of the message.

[armaghniac]

Poverty kills.  Compare the life expectancy of a person living in any inner city in the UK with high unemployment to a more affluent area and the average life expectancy can be down by as much as 10 years.  Mental health issues, depression, high alcohol and drug use, poor diet etc. are all synonymous with areas of high unemployment.

Is depression, drug use or poor diet any more common in Slovenia than in the UK, although it is not as prosperous? Many of these people are unemployed exactly because they are taking drugs or have mental health issues.

The point is that left unchecked this disease would have killed just as many as Spanish flu.
The response to it has not been ideal, because the advance planning was not done. It isn't a question of listening to the sciencetists now, they should have been consulted years ago and a proper plan put in place.

[Smurfy123]

You honestly couldn't make this up...

UK governement's Chief Scientific Officer

🔺March 9th banning flights would "not be effective"
🔺March 12th that football games were "low risk", the day after Madrid fans travelled to Liverpool


Now what changed? After all these scientist knew late January about this pandemic

No wonder all faith has been lost in the uk governments scientific approach

[RadioGAAGAA]

You honestly couldn't make this up...

UK governement's Chief Scientific Officer

🔺March 9th banning flights would "not be effective"
🔺March 12th that football games were "low risk", the day after Madrid fans travelled to Liverpool


Now what changed? After all these scientist knew late January about this pandemic

No wonder all faith has been lost in the uk governments scientific approach

Oh I've no problem with you lambasting Chris Whitty & Patrick Vallance.

Their response has been inept, their early steering has been shambolic and they have not held the government to task at all. All too often, they have allowed scientific recommendation to be bent to political will.

The post-mortem into this will not reflect well on them whatsoever.


So yeah, if you are bounding science and scientists by the performance of SAGE, the UK CMO and UK CSO - then yes - I can see where you, trailer & wobbler are coming from. But if you look to competent countries, the likes of Germany, or those that have had experience of SARS and learned, Singapore or South Korea (both with highly regarded scientific communities in themselves anyway), then you'll see that politics and economics have to take a firm back seat - indeed - the quicker they take a back seat the sooner things will sort.