China Coronavirus

Started by lurganblue, January 23, 2020, 09:52:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Angelo

Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 07:29:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 06:51:26 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: highorlow on October 17, 2020, 01:31:01 PM
I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

1. the flu is seasonal.. covid is not
2. the flu has a vaccine. covid does not
3. the flu does not overwhelm the health system.. despite lockdowns and restrictions covid clearly would overwhelm and has in some countries.

please stop comparing them.. they are not the same.

the reality is healthcare systems cannot cope if we went back to pre covid livesyles, it cannot cope with the level of restrictions and wfh that we have now. That is why we need a second lockdown imo.

what we do need to do is something that stops us from getting back to this position again. I dont know what that is.but i am.confident it is not herd immunity. My reason for this, is because despite restrictions etc. it has still got back in nursing homes which means letting it rip who cause way more people to die as we cannot silo vulnerable people.

can you tell me me other than rolling lockdowns what we should do?

1. The flu is seasonal - so why don't we go into seasonal lockdown?
2. The flu has a vaccine, uptake is at about 15-20%, vulnerable people get it, vulnerable people die from it. Healthy people get it, healthy people die from it.
3. The flu does overwhelm the health system

I think we should learn to live with it, particularly with the fatality rate falling in double digit multiples across Europe. Why do we live with the acceptable risk of death with flu every year. Can you tell me at what rate Covid comes with an acceptable risk because we clearly take an acceptable risk with flu every single year.

we have to live with it? great answer! how do we live with it...

you are not comparing like for like with covid and the flu, we live with alot of things that cause hospitalisations and dead amd there are alot of knowns about those things but we dont know enough about covid and what we do know shows it to be worst .

forget the falling fatality rate as it not reflective of what you are proposing which is living with the virus, it is as a result if all the measures that have been.taken to date including lockdowns

So we live with a lot of things that cause death and hospitalisations? We accept those risks? At what point do we accept Covid?

Forget the falling fatality rate?????????????

Why forget the falling fatality, surely this is the one metric that actually matters?

What I am saying is that at what point do we accept that Covid is acceptable to live with?

You are completely ignoring the huge societal and economic problems that lockdowns and restrictions cause. This discussion is completely shelved, at what point do we say that the narrative has to switch from Covid.

loads of questions no answers!!

i dont know when we accept the risk of covid. At some point i hope we will and the risk will be minimal


yes, forget fatiltiy rate you are predicting as it is as a result of all the actions we have taken. you are suggestting we live our pre covid lifes so then we would have a fatal rate higher than now as a result. Your predicted rate or current rate would not be same if we take what i think you are proposing.

we dont know what the fatality rate would be but it was higher in march april may.

what you are saying... is asking another question, how about deal with what you are suggesting and the implications of it.. however i am still unclear of what you are actually suggesting as all you have done is say live with it (how do we do that) and ask questions.

i am aware of the socio economic factors which is why i  said we need to do something different after this lockdown to ensure we are not back in the same position again. i dont have the answer to what that is but imo it is not herd immunity which is what i think you are sugesting..you might confirm that is your approach?

Excatly, I've asked a lot of questions and you've been too much of a chicken to address them. Why is that?

We are in a second lockdown now, what difference is going to stop a third or fourth?

Do something different. I agree - we need to do something different to lockdowns.

You look across Europe now, you delve deeper into the figures - there are some interesting results.

In the UK the average age of Covid deaths was 82.4. The median age was higher than non-covid deaths.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/average-age-of-coronavirus-fatalities-is-82-pcwqrzdzz

At what point do we say that all the consequences of the way we are dealing with this issue far outweigh alternative options.

Is this not a complete consequence of complete lack of investment in providing proper healthcare from successive governments for decades. For fit and healthy people, Covid has such a remote chance of killing you, it probably equates to getting in to your and going on a 50 mile round trip and dying.

ill answer any question you ask just tell me what you are suggesting instead of a lockdown. i cannot answer your questions without knowing what your approach is.. if i know your approach i believe i can tell you why rolling lockdowns is better than it even though i dont believe rolling lockdowns is an answer.

which one? you.mention an alternative can you outline the alternative or confirm its herd imunity. its a bit rich calling me a chicken when you avoid.my questions.

1. rolling lockdowns
2. herd immunity
3. option 3?? please explain.

the lack of investment in healthcare is an issue but a moot point as we have to live with the reality of what we have.

My approach would be to live with things as they are.

I'm talking about measures which we have been living with since the first lockdown rolled down, outlets reopening with limited capacity and social distancing practiced and we gradually roll more and more back as things go on.

At what level do we learn to live with this virus, we are told there is no quick fix solution, we are told there is no definitive timeline, we are told it could be years before a vaccine comes, we are told a vaccine might never come. So what do we do with that knowledge? Hide under our beds until such time as the virus burns itself out or a vaccine is created or try and get on with our lives with the virus?

We live with risks that threaten lives in our everyday lives, at which point does Covid come into that realm? That is the important question we should be asking ourselves.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

imtommygunn

As they are equals during a "wave". Things are not working as they are.

Do you mean with distancing and masks, limited numbers at sport etc or just let rip?

Numbers are too much. We can't do as we are.

PadraicHenryPearse

#8762
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 08:04:20 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 07:29:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 06:51:26 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: highorlow on October 17, 2020, 01:31:01 PM
I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

1. the flu is seasonal.. covid is not
2. the flu has a vaccine. covid does not
3. the flu does not overwhelm the health system.. despite lockdowns and restrictions covid clearly would overwhelm and has in some countries.

please stop comparing them.. they are not the same.

the reality is healthcare systems cannot cope if we went back to pre covid livesyles, it cannot cope with the level of restrictions and wfh that we have now. That is why we need a second lockdown imo.

what we do need to do is something that stops us from getting back to this position again. I dont know what that is.but i am.confident it is not herd immunity. My reason for this, is because despite restrictions etc. it has still got back in nursing homes which means letting it rip who cause way more people to die as we cannot silo vulnerable people.

can you tell me me other than rolling lockdowns what we should do?

1. The flu is seasonal - so why don't we go into seasonal lockdown?
2. The flu has a vaccine, uptake is at about 15-20%, vulnerable people get it, vulnerable people die from it. Healthy people get it, healthy people die from it.
3. The flu does overwhelm the health system

I think we should learn to live with it, particularly with the fatality rate falling in double digit multiples across Europe. Why do we live with the acceptable risk of death with flu every year. Can you tell me at what rate Covid comes with an acceptable risk because we clearly take an acceptable risk with flu every single year.

we have to live with it? great answer! how do we live with it...

you are not comparing like for like with covid and the flu, we live with alot of things that cause hospitalisations and dead amd there are alot of knowns about those things but we dont know enough about covid and what we do know shows it to be worst .

forget the falling fatality rate as it not reflective of what you are proposing which is living with the virus, it is as a result if all the measures that have been.taken to date including lockdowns

So we live with a lot of things that cause death and hospitalisations? We accept those risks? At what point do we accept Covid?

Forget the falling fatality rate?????????????

Why forget the falling fatality, surely this is the one metric that actually matters?

What I am saying is that at what point do we accept that Covid is acceptable to live with?

You are completely ignoring the huge societal and economic problems that lockdowns and restrictions cause. This discussion is completely shelved, at what point do we say that the narrative has to switch from Covid.

loads of questions no answers!!

i dont know when we accept the risk of covid. At some point i hope we will and the risk will be minimal


yes, forget fatiltiy rate you are predicting as it is as a result of all the actions we have taken. you are suggestting we live our pre covid lifes so then we would have a fatal rate higher than now as a result. Your predicted rate or current rate would not be same if we take what i think you are proposing.

we dont know what the fatality rate would be but it was higher in march april may.

what you are saying... is asking another question, how about deal with what you are suggesting and the implications of it.. however i am still unclear of what you are actually suggesting as all you have done is say live with it (how do we do that) and ask questions.

i am aware of the socio economic factors which is why i  said we need to do something different after this lockdown to ensure we are not back in the same position again. i dont have the answer to what that is but imo it is not herd immunity which is what i think you are sugesting..you might confirm that is your approach?

Excatly, I've asked a lot of questions and you've been too much of a chicken to address them. Why is that?

We are in a second lockdown now, what difference is going to stop a third or fourth?

Do something different. I agree - we need to do something different to lockdowns.

You look across Europe now, you delve deeper into the figures - there are some interesting results.

In the UK the average age of Covid deaths was 82.4. The median age was higher than non-covid deaths.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/average-age-of-coronavirus-fatalities-is-82-pcwqrzdzz

At what point do we say that all the consequences of the way we are dealing with this issue far outweigh alternative options.

Is this not a complete consequence of complete lack of investment in providing proper healthcare from successive governments for decades. For fit and healthy people, Covid has such a remote chance of killing you, it probably equates to getting in to your and going on a 50 mile round trip and dying.

ill answer any question you ask just tell me what you are suggesting instead of a lockdown. i cannot answer your questions without knowing what your approach is.. if i know your approach i believe i can tell you why rolling lockdowns is better than it even though i dont believe rolling lockdowns is an answer.

which one? you.mention an alternative can you outline the alternative or confirm its herd imunity. its a bit rich calling me a chicken when you avoid.my questions.

1. rolling lockdowns
2. herd immunity
3. option 3?? please explain.

the lack of investment in healthcare is an issue but a moot point as we have to live with the reality of what we have.

My approach would be to live with things as they are.

I'm talking about measures which we have been living with since the first lockdown rolled down, outlets reopening with limited capacity and social distancing practiced and we gradually roll more and more back as things go on.

At what level do we learn to live with this virus, we are told there is no quick fix solution, we are told there is no definitive timeline, we are told it could be years before a vaccine comes, we are told a vaccine might never come. So what do we do with that knowledge? Hide under our beds until such time as the virus burns itself out or a vaccine is created or try and get on with our lives with the virus?

We live with risks that threaten lives in our everyday lives, at which point does Covid come into that realm? That is the important question we should be asking ourselves.

What you are suggesting has seen the number grow from single digits to over 1000 now. if we continued on your proposed route what would the number grow to and when would the hospital be overun and how many would die as a result. would people not then start to restrict themselves to protect their own live, knowing the health system couldnt help them. We must also remember long term effects are not fully known and who those effect is not known, which will effect peoples thinking.

The socio economic side i dont think people would go back to their normal lives in enough numbers to keep businesses going. As the government wouldnt be restricting businesses, government supports would stop, businesses would fail and unemployment would soar. Also due to higher levels in hospitals and probably dying, people would be more reluctant  to go outside to theses businesses.

the reality is not enough people are adhering to guidelines so  expecting this to be different now than it has been the last few months would be a massive leap so the measures have failed. 

restorepride

Swear this is my last post here - but if you want a laugh, read the recent post on the Celtic Thread from illdecide.  Says it all really, no more evidence required!!   :-X

Angelo

Quote from: imtommygunn on October 17, 2020, 08:13:57 PM
As they are equals during a "wave". Things are not working as they are.

Do you mean with distancing and masks, limited numbers at sport etc or just let rip?

Numbers are too much. We can't do as we are.

I think we have to live our lives in a different way and that is with masks, limited numbers at events, social distancing, hand washing etc.

The virus is there, we can either hide under our beds in a lockdown scenario, have the case numbers fall again, gradually open up again and have the number soar and go back into another lockdown and repeat this cycle again and again and again until such time as science solves it, which could be years or could be never.

Or we can just try our best to get on with things.

We've probably had around 20k cases in the past 2 months now and around 40-50 recorded deaths. I'm sure deaths will go up now but the data that lies behind those deaths is important, the age profile, the underlying health issues are all vital. Is Covid being classifed as the cause of death when it only was a minor contributing factor?

How many more lockdowns do you think we can do?

How many businesses and jobs can survive with lockdowns and restrictive measures associated with such and we all need to know what we are making all these sacrifices for?

These are the questions we must ask ourselves when we look at our approach.

Just out of interest and I have no agenda here, but do you have an opinion on the avg age of Covid deaths being 82? How much of a life expectancy does your avg 82 year old have? What sort of underlying health conditions does your avg 82 yr old have?
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

imtommygunn

The lockdowns need to evolve as we learn. Ideally they don't exist but that is not going to be the case for a while. I don't fully agree with some aspects tbh but what can you do.

The average age of death etc shouldn't imo be the concern here. Health service burden, potential long term side effects and things like that should be. Basically there needs to be more understanding yet and long term heart and lung issues are a big concern independent of age.

armaghniac

The average age of Covid victims may be high, but the average age of health care staff who died is in their 50s.If you allow a load of it around then you place the whole health care sector at this risk.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Angelo

Quote from: imtommygunn on October 17, 2020, 08:46:17 PM
The lockdowns need to evolve as we learn. Ideally they don't exist but that is not going to be the case for a while. I don't fully agree with some aspects tbh but what can you do.

The average age of death etc shouldn't imo be the concern here. Health service burden, potential long term side effects and things like that should be. Basically there needs to be more understanding yet and long term heart and lung issues are a big concern independent of age.

The potential long term effects of lockdown and burdens they place on people and the economy are huge. People can become utterly consumer and obsessed about Covid that they cannot see the woods from the trees.

How long will it take us to see about long term heart and lung disease? A decade? Life is short and if we lived our life with this level of worry in every asepct we would probably never leave our house.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

imtommygunn

They've already been seen. They're long term in that the people who have them will have to live with them for the long term.

I don't live my life in fear but am privileged enough to be able to work from home. I wouldn't fancy working in a factory for example.

There is balance somewhere. While there are so many unknowns you need to err on the side of caution. Your suggestion doesn't have balance though. (Assuming it is let rip which it seems to be)

Milltown Row2

Life can be very long, short is 38, the age a very good club mate of mine that died recently. Angelo, you are full of shit and a reincarnation of the WUM's we've had on here for years
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

PadraicHenryPearse

Quote from: imtommygunn on October 17, 2020, 09:56:57 PM
They've already been seen. They're long term in that the people who have them will have to live with them for the long term.

I don't live my life in fear but am privileged enough to be able to work from home. I wouldn't fancy working in a factory for example.

There is balance somewhere. While there are so many unknowns you need to err on the side of caution. Your suggestion doesn't have balance though. (Assuming it is let rip which it seems to be)

its inadvertently let it rip, as from what i can gather it is to do what we were doing pre the increase in numbers but expect a different outcome and if some 80+ yr old people die so be it, they had a good life., the rest of us can enjoy our lifes. Also dont worry about what happens if numbers increase to a level that hospitals cannot deal with.

armaghniac

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2020, 09:30:45 PM
How long will it take us to see about long term heart and lung disease? A decade? Life is short and if we lived our life with this level of worry in every asepct we would probably never leave our house.

Yeah, like a dose of Covid does your heart or lungs any good.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

sid waddell

Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 10:17:47 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on October 17, 2020, 09:56:57 PM
They've already been seen. They're long term in that the people who have them will have to live with them for the long term.

I don't live my life in fear but am privileged enough to be able to work from home. I wouldn't fancy working in a factory for example.

There is balance somewhere. While there are so many unknowns you need to err on the side of caution. Your suggestion doesn't have balance though. (Assuming it is let rip which it seems to be)

its inadvertently let it rip, as from what i can gather it is to do what we were doing pre the increase in numbers but expect a different outcome and if some 80+ yr old people die so be it, they had a good life., the rest of us can enjoy our lifes. Also dont worry about what happens if numbers increase to a level that hospitals cannot deal with.
One of the most insidiously abhorrent aspects of the Covid deniers is the way they're attempting to portray themselves as being concerned with the well being of society when they're actually pushing an anarcho-capitalist, individualist, US right-wing libertarian view of the world which gives not one flying piece of excrement about society

A total lie, in other words

It's really gross

thewobbler

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 17, 2020, 10:10:57 PM
Life can be very long, short is 38, the age a very good club mate of mine that died recently. Angelo, you are full of shit and a reincarnation of the WUM's we've had on here for years


See I don't think this is fair at all MR2. I've lost two very club mates at the same age in the past decade, from cancer. Covid might be dangerous, it might be topical, but it must not enjoy a monopoly on compassion.

One of Angelo's recurring points in the past 50 pages has been that Covid is trumping all other forms of essential care, and querying whether we will regret this move. Please don't now evolve this into Covid trumping all other forms of compassion.

thewobbler

Quote from: sid waddell on October 17, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 17, 2020, 10:17:47 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on October 17, 2020, 09:56:57 PM
They've already been seen. They're long term in that the people who have them will have to live with them for the long term.

I don't live my life in fear but am privileged enough to be able to work from home. I wouldn't fancy working in a factory for example.

There is balance somewhere. While there are so many unknowns you need to err on the side of caution. Your suggestion doesn't have balance though. (Assuming it is let rip which it seems to be)

its inadvertently let it rip, as from what i can gather it is to do what we were doing pre the increase in numbers but expect a different outcome and if some 80+ yr old people die so be it, they had a good life., the rest of us can enjoy our lifes. Also dont worry about what happens if numbers increase to a level that hospitals cannot deal with.
One of the most insidiously abhorrent aspects of the Covid deniers is the way they're attempting to portray themselves as being concerned with the well being of society when they're actually pushing an anarcho-capitalist, individualist, US right-wing libertarian view of the world which gives not one flying piece of excrement about society

A total lie, in other words

It's really gross

What's also gross:

1. That you can only deal in extremes and will respond to queries and frustrations with government Covid policy, by labelling posters as Covid deniers.

2. That you can't just leave it at that, but you also have to add in a splurge of nonsensical bile about politics, even though political options in Ireland are remarkably centric.

3. That you feel the need to post this identical message every 2-3 days.