China Coronavirus

[gallsman]

It's amazing the way a few posters on a GAA messageboard are able to conclude that a novel virus that science are still struggling to work out 10 months on, is conclusively more severe than influenza.

Maybe we should fly them out to WHO to help solve it.

Nobody on here concluded this themselves.  They looked at the mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence and also the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

Scientists are not 'struggling to work it out'.  The Chinese mapped the genome within a few weeks.  They are struggling to find a vaccine/treatment/cure.

You still haven't posted your evidence to the contrary though.  Why is that?

If you had brains you'd be dangerous, you seem to be a self-anointed expert. If the Chinese have it mapped out then are there so many open questions on the fundamentals of the virus regarding immunity, transmission, anitbodies, asymptomatic levels and their ability to transmit the virus and their immunity? You are talking through your hoop.

I don't need to add in contrary evidence because I am not making any conclusive claims - I am calling out the blowhards like yourself who are. My views are grounded in rational - we can't say anything with certainty on Covid - it's a novel virus and we have all the so called brains in the world looking at quelling its spread and they can't come up with answers. We have all the brain power in the world coming out with wide of the mark predicitions, data modellers missing their predictions by a million miles. The virus is a conundrum for the human race, it's here to stay for the medium-long term and I guess we will find out more about it as we go around.

What is important is that governments and medical bodies focus on how we can live with this virus in that medium-long term. Successive lockdowns will not cut, it's grand talking about utopian views of people sacrificing their liberties and that but let's be honest - people are cracking now, as much as it would be great if we could do kumbayas on Zoom calls - people are cracking and getting restless.

We live with seasonal flus every single year that take lives. We don't go into lockdown over it, it's an acceptable level of death - so governments need to decide what is acceptable and put in place the way we can meet that acceptable level at some sort of normality for everyone.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking science has got this sorted.

This one is a pandemic.  Maybe that is the difference with which you are struggling?  Can you quantify your "acceptable level of death" please with regard to Covid 19?

That's what the government need to decide. I'm not struggling with that difference one bit, some people are though. Some people fail to understand that every decision being made is done so on a large amount of guesswork. This is not a situation unique to Ireland, all across Europe cases are surging. The next few months are going go give us a lot of answers on Covid and its fatality rate. The horse has bolted with regard to transmission so now we just wait and see what happens.

The fatality rate is trending massively downward in Europe over the past few months. If that remains consistent then it is up to governments to decide what an acceptable level of death is. We have an acceptable level of death every year with seasonal flu, we don't close down society for it - we live with it and the consequences of it.

There seems to be some very naive people here that are of the opinion we are going to find a vaccine very shortly, we are going to have the virus eradicated in the next 12 months and we will all go back to normal.

That looks extremely unlikely and lockdowns and restrictive measures will cause extreme societal problems long term. So governments need to decide what an acceptable level of death is with regard to Covid, like they do seasonal flu and plan for us to live with a virus that ain't going anywhere for the next few years.

Completely disingenuous as it's trending up over the last few weeks in lots of places.

From Friday Catalonia is shutting down the hospitality sector except for takeaway and delivery for two weeks, as well as a host of other measures

[Milltown Row2]

It's amazing the way a few posters on a GAA messageboard are able to conclude that a novel virus that science are still struggling to work out 10 months on, is conclusively more severe than influenza.

Maybe we should fly them out to WHO to help solve it.

Nobody on here concluded this themselves.  They looked at the mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence and also the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

Scientists are not 'struggling to work it out'.  The Chinese mapped the genome within a few weeks.  They are struggling to find a vaccine/treatment/cure.

You still haven't posted your evidence to the contrary though.  Why is that?

If you had brains you'd be dangerous, you seem to be a self-anointed expert. If the Chinese have it mapped out then are there so many open questions on the fundamentals of the virus regarding immunity, transmission, anitbodies, asymptomatic levels and their ability to transmit the virus and their immunity? You are talking through your hoop.

I don't need to add in contrary evidence because I am not making any conclusive claims - I am calling out the blowhards like yourself who are. My views are grounded in rational - we can't say anything with certainty on Covid - it's a novel virus and we have all the so called brains in the world looking at quelling its spread and they can't come up with answers. We have all the brain power in the world coming out with wide of the mark predicitions, data modellers missing their predictions by a million miles. The virus is a conundrum for the human race, it's here to stay for the medium-long term and I guess we will find out more about it as we go around.

What is important is that governments and medical bodies focus on how we can live with this virus in that medium-long term. Successive lockdowns will not cut, it's grand talking about utopian views of people sacrificing their liberties and that but let's be honest - people are cracking now, as much as it would be great if we could do kumbayas on Zoom calls - people are cracking and getting restless.

We live with seasonal flus every single year that take lives. We don't go into lockdown over it, it's an acceptable level of death - so governments need to decide what is acceptable and put in place the way we can meet that acceptable level at some sort of normality for everyone.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking science has got this sorted.

This one is a pandemic.  Maybe that is the difference with which you are struggling?  Can you quantify your "acceptable level of death" please with regard to Covid 19?

That's what the government need to decide. I'm not struggling with that difference one bit, some people are though. Some people fail to understand that every decision being made is done so on a large amount of guesswork. This is not a situation unique to Ireland, all across Europe cases are surging. The next few months are going go give us a lot of answers on Covid and its fatality rate. The horse has bolted with regard to transmission so now we just wait and see what happens.

The fatality rate is trending massively downward in Europe over the past few months. If that remains consistent then it is up to governments to decide what an acceptable level of death is. We have an acceptable level of death every year with seasonal flu, we don't close down society for it - we live with it and the consequences of it.

There seems to be some very naive people here that are of the opinion we are going to find a vaccine very shortly, we are going to have the virus eradicated in the next 12 months and we will all go back to normal.

That looks extremely unlikely and lockdowns and restrictive measures will cause extreme societal problems long term. So governments need to decide what an acceptable level of death is with regard to Covid, like they do seasonal flu and plan for us to live with a virus that ain't going anywhere for the next few years.

Is this virus seasonal?

Does the flu spread as quick as this virus?

Does the flu jab reduce the numbers dying?

I think what's acceptable is when the governments and the scientists get a handle on how to reduce it and slow down the infection rate then we can open up better with more confidence, until then I think its acceptable to err on caution rather than continue with the likes of what's happening in Liverpool/strabane and Derry.

No avoidable death should be acceptable, treatments are not being allowed to happen because the hospitals don't want to take in unwanted admissions, by getting the rate down then we can start to deal with the other conditions that are rising.

If you are encouraging people to go about as normal, as in your view there should be an acceptable death level, is reckless 

[Angelo]

It's amazing the way a few posters on a GAA messageboard are able to conclude that a novel virus that science are still struggling to work out 10 months on, is conclusively more severe than influenza.

Maybe we should fly them out to WHO to help solve it.

Nobody on here concluded this themselves.  They looked at the mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence and also the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

Scientists are not 'struggling to work it out'.  The Chinese mapped the genome within a few weeks.  They are struggling to find a vaccine/treatment/cure.

You still haven't posted your evidence to the contrary though.  Why is that?

If you had brains you'd be dangerous, you seem to be a self-anointed expert. If the Chinese have it mapped out then are there so many open questions on the fundamentals of the virus regarding immunity, transmission, anitbodies, asymptomatic levels and their ability to transmit the virus and their immunity? You are talking through your hoop.

I don't need to add in contrary evidence because I am not making any conclusive claims - I am calling out the blowhards like yourself who are. My views are grounded in rational - we can't say anything with certainty on Covid - it's a novel virus and we have all the so called brains in the world looking at quelling its spread and they can't come up with answers. We have all the brain power in the world coming out with wide of the mark predicitions, data modellers missing their predictions by a million miles. The virus is a conundrum for the human race, it's here to stay for the medium-long term and I guess we will find out more about it as we go around.

What is important is that governments and medical bodies focus on how we can live with this virus in that medium-long term. Successive lockdowns will not cut, it's grand talking about utopian views of people sacrificing their liberties and that but let's be honest - people are cracking now, as much as it would be great if we could do kumbayas on Zoom calls - people are cracking and getting restless.

We live with seasonal flus every single year that take lives. We don't go into lockdown over it, it's an acceptable level of death - so governments need to decide what is acceptable and put in place the way we can meet that acceptable level at some sort of normality for everyone.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking science has got this sorted.

This one is a pandemic.  Maybe that is the difference with which you are struggling?  Can you quantify your "acceptable level of death" please with regard to Covid 19?

That's what the government need to decide. I'm not struggling with that difference one bit, some people are though. Some people fail to understand that every decision being made is done so on a large amount of guesswork. This is not a situation unique to Ireland, all across Europe cases are surging. The next few months are going go give us a lot of answers on Covid and its fatality rate. The horse has bolted with regard to transmission so now we just wait and see what happens.

The fatality rate is trending massively downward in Europe over the past few months. If that remains consistent then it is up to governments to decide what an acceptable level of death is. We have an acceptable level of death every year with seasonal flu, we don't close down society for it - we live with it and the consequences of it.

There seems to be some very naive people here that are of the opinion we are going to find a vaccine very shortly, we are going to have the virus eradicated in the next 12 months and we will all go back to normal.

That looks extremely unlikely and lockdowns and restrictive measures will cause extreme societal problems long term. So governments need to decide what an acceptable level of death is with regard to Covid, like they do seasonal flu and plan for us to live with a virus that ain't going anywhere for the next few years.

Is this virus seasonal?

Does the flu spread as quick as this virus?

Does the flu jab reduce the numbers dying?

I think what's acceptable is when the governments and the scientists get a handle on how to reduce it and slow down the infection rate then we can open up better with more confidence, until then I think its acceptable to err on caution rather than continue with the likes of what's happening in Liverpool/strabane and Derry.

No avoidable death should be acceptable, treatments are not being allowed to happen because the hospitals don't want to take in unwanted admissions, by getting the rate down then we can start to deal with the other conditions that are rising.

If you are encouraging people to go about as normal, as in your view there should be an acceptable death level, is reckless

I don't know. I'm not encouraging anything.

We are where we are, we are doing what we are doing and time will tell and I think the next few months are going to dictate how we proceed from here.

What I do know is that hopping from lockdown to lockdown and long term restrictive measures will cause absolutely huge economic and employment problems that will have huge societal knock-on effects and potential mental health issues associated with such.

I am speaking out against idiots on here who know nothing about the virus yet are stating with authority about how it all needs to unfold. We simply don't know yet. We will find out in due time and we are in a situation in the north where the virus is surging through the community and now we have to wait and see if the consequences of such are acceptable or will have done untold damage in turn of deaths.

We live with a seasonal flu that causes deaths every year, puts enormous strain on the health service, can cause long-term lasting effects for people who get it - so clearly there is an acceptable risk we are willing to take with a virus. What is that risk?

Covid fatality rates are only trending downwards at the minute despite huge rises in new cases - if this continues then this should reflect our outlook into living with the virus. What is that acceptable level of risk we live with?

It's interesting that the WHO has criticised governments for using lockdowns as their primary weapon to fight Covid.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-world-health-organisation-doctor-backflips-on-virus-lockdowns-dont-use-them-as-a-primary-control/DQMBCUNNRCHCBLCITIMKOYXLRU/

[GetOverTheBar]

But HS "not enough hospital beds" is far from a new phenomenon.  Hospitals being overwhelmed is part of UK and Ireland living.

What we don't yet know about Covid is can we send most people home with paracetamol and a warm blanket, as combined with rest is often the only solution to the annual flu.

Ah seriously your taking the piss?? Have you spoke to anyone who works in the hospitals? No one is going to hospital as a precaution, that could have otherwised been sent home with a few paracetamol and a blanket. Its because they need oxygen at the very least. Its plain to see for anyone with half a brain that this thing can very quickly overwelm the health service unlike anything before including the seasonal flu. We knew this in April and we still know it now. Derry had 5 ICU beds in April and they still have 5 now. I suspect they have the same no of ventilators though I stand to be corrected on that. I'm sure there is plenty of other under resourced hospitals out there. That's why they are shitting it and locking down.

Altnagelvin has ICU 10 beds with a surge capacity increasing capacity to 20. This has been in place since April

10 Beds, 10.....Jesus.

You know maybe if the NHS hadn't been obliterated via financial cuts for about 25 years we wouldn't have to be counting beds in hospitals.

Can someone in the medical profession let me know am I mad here - 10 beds in one ICU unit seems very low.

[Milltown Row2]

It's amazing the way a few posters on a GAA messageboard are able to conclude that a novel virus that science are still struggling to work out 10 months on, is conclusively more severe than influenza.

Maybe we should fly them out to WHO to help solve it.

Nobody on here concluded this themselves.  They looked at the mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence and also the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

Scientists are not 'struggling to work it out'.  The Chinese mapped the genome within a few weeks.  They are struggling to find a vaccine/treatment/cure.

You still haven't posted your evidence to the contrary though.  Why is that?

If you had brains you'd be dangerous, you seem to be a self-anointed expert. If the Chinese have it mapped out then are there so many open questions on the fundamentals of the virus regarding immunity, transmission, anitbodies, asymptomatic levels and their ability to transmit the virus and their immunity? You are talking through your hoop.

I don't need to add in contrary evidence because I am not making any conclusive claims - I am calling out the blowhards like yourself who are. My views are grounded in rational - we can't say anything with certainty on Covid - it's a novel virus and we have all the so called brains in the world looking at quelling its spread and they can't come up with answers. We have all the brain power in the world coming out with wide of the mark predicitions, data modellers missing their predictions by a million miles. The virus is a conundrum for the human race, it's here to stay for the medium-long term and I guess we will find out more about it as we go around.

What is important is that governments and medical bodies focus on how we can live with this virus in that medium-long term. Successive lockdowns will not cut, it's grand talking about utopian views of people sacrificing their liberties and that but let's be honest - people are cracking now, as much as it would be great if we could do kumbayas on Zoom calls - people are cracking and getting restless.

We live with seasonal flus every single year that take lives. We don't go into lockdown over it, it's an acceptable level of death - so governments need to decide what is acceptable and put in place the way we can meet that acceptable level at some sort of normality for everyone.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking science has got this sorted.

This one is a pandemic.  Maybe that is the difference with which you are struggling?  Can you quantify your "acceptable level of death" please with regard to Covid 19?

That's what the government need to decide. I'm not struggling with that difference one bit, some people are though. Some people fail to understand that every decision being made is done so on a large amount of guesswork. This is not a situation unique to Ireland, all across Europe cases are surging. The next few months are going go give us a lot of answers on Covid and its fatality rate. The horse has bolted with regard to transmission so now we just wait and see what happens.

The fatality rate is trending massively downward in Europe over the past few months. If that remains consistent then it is up to governments to decide what an acceptable level of death is. We have an acceptable level of death every year with seasonal flu, we don't close down society for it - we live with it and the consequences of it.

There seems to be some very naive people here that are of the opinion we are going to find a vaccine very shortly, we are going to have the virus eradicated in the next 12 months and we will all go back to normal.

That looks extremely unlikely and lockdowns and restrictive measures will cause extreme societal problems long term. So governments need to decide what an acceptable level of death is with regard to Covid, like they do seasonal flu and plan for us to live with a virus that ain't going anywhere for the next few years.

Is this virus seasonal?

Does the flu spread as quick as this virus?

Does the flu jab reduce the numbers dying?

I think what's acceptable is when the governments and the scientists get a handle on how to reduce it and slow down the infection rate then we can open up better with more confidence, until then I think its acceptable to err on caution rather than continue with the likes of what's happening in Liverpool/strabane and Derry.

No avoidable death should be acceptable, treatments are not being allowed to happen because the hospitals don't want to take in unwanted admissions, by getting the rate down then we can start to deal with the other conditions that are rising.

If you are encouraging people to go about as normal, as in your view there should be an acceptable death level, is reckless

I don't know. I'm not encouraging anything.

We are where we are, we are doing what we are doing and time will tell and I think the next few months are going to dictate how we proceed from here.

What I do know is that hopping from lockdown to lockdown and long term restrictive measures will cause absolutely huge economic and employment problems that will have huge societal knock-on effects and potential mental health issues associated with such.

I am speaking out against idiots on here who know nothing about the virus yet are stating with authority about how it all needs to unfold. We simply don't know yet. We will find out in due time and we are in a situation in the north where the virus is surging through the community and now we have to wait and see if the consequences of such are acceptable or will have done untold damage in turn of deaths.

We live with a seasonal flu that causes deaths every year, puts enormous strain on the health service, can cause long-term lasting effects for people who get it - so clearly there is an acceptable risk we are willing to take with a virus. What is that risk?

Covid fatality rates are only trending downwards at the minute despite huge rises in new cases - if this continues then this should reflect our outlook into living with the virus. What is that acceptable level of risk we live with?

It's interesting that the WHO has criticised governments for using lockdowns as their primary weapon to fight Covid.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-world-health-organisation-doctor-backflips-on-virus-lockdowns-dont-use-them-as-a-primary-control/DQMBCUNNRCHCBLCITIMKOYXLRU/

So in your own words "I don't know" then why do you have the view you do, without out actually knowing what's the best way forward?

Do you accept that the flu is seasonal and this virus isn't? so putting them together is incorrect?

In bold surely you know nothing about it, would you put yourself in that bracket?

[Angelo]

It's amazing the way a few posters on a GAA messageboard are able to conclude that a novel virus that science are still struggling to work out 10 months on, is conclusively more severe than influenza.

Maybe we should fly them out to WHO to help solve it.

Nobody on here concluded this themselves.  They looked at the mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence and also the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

Scientists are not 'struggling to work it out'.  The Chinese mapped the genome within a few weeks.  They are struggling to find a vaccine/treatment/cure.

You still haven't posted your evidence to the contrary though.  Why is that?

If you had brains you'd be dangerous, you seem to be a self-anointed expert. If the Chinese have it mapped out then are there so many open questions on the fundamentals of the virus regarding immunity, transmission, anitbodies, asymptomatic levels and their ability to transmit the virus and their immunity? You are talking through your hoop.

I don't need to add in contrary evidence because I am not making any conclusive claims - I am calling out the blowhards like yourself who are. My views are grounded in rational - we can't say anything with certainty on Covid - it's a novel virus and we have all the so called brains in the world looking at quelling its spread and they can't come up with answers. We have all the brain power in the world coming out with wide of the mark predicitions, data modellers missing their predictions by a million miles. The virus is a conundrum for the human race, it's here to stay for the medium-long term and I guess we will find out more about it as we go around.

What is important is that governments and medical bodies focus on how we can live with this virus in that medium-long term. Successive lockdowns will not cut, it's grand talking about utopian views of people sacrificing their liberties and that but let's be honest - people are cracking now, as much as it would be great if we could do kumbayas on Zoom calls - people are cracking and getting restless.

We live with seasonal flus every single year that take lives. We don't go into lockdown over it, it's an acceptable level of death - so governments need to decide what is acceptable and put in place the way we can meet that acceptable level at some sort of normality for everyone.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking science has got this sorted.

This one is a pandemic.  Maybe that is the difference with which you are struggling?  Can you quantify your "acceptable level of death" please with regard to Covid 19?

That's what the government need to decide. I'm not struggling with that difference one bit, some people are though. Some people fail to understand that every decision being made is done so on a large amount of guesswork. This is not a situation unique to Ireland, all across Europe cases are surging. The next few months are going go give us a lot of answers on Covid and its fatality rate. The horse has bolted with regard to transmission so now we just wait and see what happens.

The fatality rate is trending massively downward in Europe over the past few months. If that remains consistent then it is up to governments to decide what an acceptable level of death is. We have an acceptable level of death every year with seasonal flu, we don't close down society for it - we live with it and the consequences of it.

There seems to be some very naive people here that are of the opinion we are going to find a vaccine very shortly, we are going to have the virus eradicated in the next 12 months and we will all go back to normal.

That looks extremely unlikely and lockdowns and restrictive measures will cause extreme societal problems long term. So governments need to decide what an acceptable level of death is with regard to Covid, like they do seasonal flu and plan for us to live with a virus that ain't going anywhere for the next few years.

Completely disingenuous as it's trending up over the last few weeks in lots of places.

From Friday Catalonia is shutting down the hospitality sector except for takeaway and delivery for two weeks, as well as a host of other measures

That is complete and utter horseshit. Put up some facts to support that.

If there is any country in Europe seeing fatality rates increasing from the 1st wave then I'd love you to show me rather than spreading false information.

Most countries fatality rates are falling in double digit multiples from the first wave. If you put the first wave as start - July 31 and second wave as Aug 1 - present we can see the huge fluctuations

France's fatality rate in the second wave is 35 times less than the first wave
Spain's fatality rate in the second wave is 14 times less than the first wave
Belgium's fatality rate in the second wave is 46 times less than the first wave
UK's fatality rate in the second wave is 25 times less than the first wave
Ireland's fatality rate in the second wave is 18 times less than the first wave


All across Europe the fatality rates per cases are plummeting in this second wave, if this holds up it should certainly be factored in moving forward.

[LCohen]

Well can you accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that NI mortality rate will be as high in 5-6 weeks as they have been at earlier stages?

I cannot accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that as there are loads of doom merchants out there who do think we are all going to die from it.

As I have said countless times before, the next 5/6 weeks will be telling. The virus is so widespread now up north that we are going to be able to quantify to some regard of how much of a danger it is when that time has passed.

Well you can at least accept that you cannot point to anyone who has claimed that the NI death rate in 5-6 weeks will be as high as it was at earlier stages?

[Angelo]

It's amazing the way a few posters on a GAA messageboard are able to conclude that a novel virus that science are still struggling to work out 10 months on, is conclusively more severe than influenza.

Maybe we should fly them out to WHO to help solve it.

Nobody on here concluded this themselves.  They looked at the mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence and also the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

Scientists are not 'struggling to work it out'.  The Chinese mapped the genome within a few weeks.  They are struggling to find a vaccine/treatment/cure.

You still haven't posted your evidence to the contrary though.  Why is that?

If you had brains you'd be dangerous, you seem to be a self-anointed expert. If the Chinese have it mapped out then are there so many open questions on the fundamentals of the virus regarding immunity, transmission, anitbodies, asymptomatic levels and their ability to transmit the virus and their immunity? You are talking through your hoop.

I don't need to add in contrary evidence because I am not making any conclusive claims - I am calling out the blowhards like yourself who are. My views are grounded in rational - we can't say anything with certainty on Covid - it's a novel virus and we have all the so called brains in the world looking at quelling its spread and they can't come up with answers. We have all the brain power in the world coming out with wide of the mark predicitions, data modellers missing their predictions by a million miles. The virus is a conundrum for the human race, it's here to stay for the medium-long term and I guess we will find out more about it as we go around.

What is important is that governments and medical bodies focus on how we can live with this virus in that medium-long term. Successive lockdowns will not cut, it's grand talking about utopian views of people sacrificing their liberties and that but let's be honest - people are cracking now, as much as it would be great if we could do kumbayas on Zoom calls - people are cracking and getting restless.

We live with seasonal flus every single year that take lives. We don't go into lockdown over it, it's an acceptable level of death - so governments need to decide what is acceptable and put in place the way we can meet that acceptable level at some sort of normality for everyone.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking science has got this sorted.

This one is a pandemic.  Maybe that is the difference with which you are struggling?  Can you quantify your "acceptable level of death" please with regard to Covid 19?

That's what the government need to decide. I'm not struggling with that difference one bit, some people are though. Some people fail to understand that every decision being made is done so on a large amount of guesswork. This is not a situation unique to Ireland, all across Europe cases are surging. The next few months are going go give us a lot of answers on Covid and its fatality rate. The horse has bolted with regard to transmission so now we just wait and see what happens.

The fatality rate is trending massively downward in Europe over the past few months. If that remains consistent then it is up to governments to decide what an acceptable level of death is. We have an acceptable level of death every year with seasonal flu, we don't close down society for it - we live with it and the consequences of it.

There seems to be some very naive people here that are of the opinion we are going to find a vaccine very shortly, we are going to have the virus eradicated in the next 12 months and we will all go back to normal.

That looks extremely unlikely and lockdowns and restrictive measures will cause extreme societal problems long term. So governments need to decide what an acceptable level of death is with regard to Covid, like they do seasonal flu and plan for us to live with a virus that ain't going anywhere for the next few years.

Is this virus seasonal?

Does the flu spread as quick as this virus?

Does the flu jab reduce the numbers dying?

I think what's acceptable is when the governments and the scientists get a handle on how to reduce it and slow down the infection rate then we can open up better with more confidence, until then I think its acceptable to err on caution rather than continue with the likes of what's happening in Liverpool/strabane and Derry.

No avoidable death should be acceptable, treatments are not being allowed to happen because the hospitals don't want to take in unwanted admissions, by getting the rate down then we can start to deal with the other conditions that are rising.

If you are encouraging people to go about as normal, as in your view there should be an acceptable death level, is reckless

I don't know. I'm not encouraging anything.

We are where we are, we are doing what we are doing and time will tell and I think the next few months are going to dictate how we proceed from here.

What I do know is that hopping from lockdown to lockdown and long term restrictive measures will cause absolutely huge economic and employment problems that will have huge societal knock-on effects and potential mental health issues associated with such.

I am speaking out against idiots on here who know nothing about the virus yet are stating with authority about how it all needs to unfold. We simply don't know yet. We will find out in due time and we are in a situation in the north where the virus is surging through the community and now we have to wait and see if the consequences of such are acceptable or will have done untold damage in turn of deaths.

We live with a seasonal flu that causes deaths every year, puts enormous strain on the health service, can cause long-term lasting effects for people who get it - so clearly there is an acceptable risk we are willing to take with a virus. What is that risk?

Covid fatality rates are only trending downwards at the minute despite huge rises in new cases - if this continues then this should reflect our outlook into living with the virus. What is that acceptable level of risk we live with?

It's interesting that the WHO has criticised governments for using lockdowns as their primary weapon to fight Covid.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-world-health-organisation-doctor-backflips-on-virus-lockdowns-dont-use-them-as-a-primary-control/DQMBCUNNRCHCBLCITIMKOYXLRU/

So in your own words "I don't know" then why do you have the view you do, without out actually knowing what's the best way forward?

Do you accept that the flu is seasonal and this virus isn't? so putting them together is incorrect?

In bold surely you know nothing about it, would you put yourself in that bracket?

The view I have is that we won't know what the best course of action to proceed until we know more and the best course of action will be to see how what has now happened unfolds.

Doesn't matter if the flu is seasonal, we could lockdown seasonally to prevent the deaths and knock on effects to health and the health system that flu brings with it every year - we don't.

It's bizarre that you are trying to claim I am advocating any type of policy when all I'm asking for is the spoofers who are pretending to be experts on a virus that scientists are still trying to crack to hold off on claiming what is the best course of action.

We live with a flu every year that kills, the next few months are going to give us an answer on how much we have advanced with managing Covid, infections rates are surging all across Europe, if the fatality rate steadies out or continues to lower then it is something that we can live with. Flu is a perfect example of a virus we are happy to live with even though the consequences can be severe.

[LCohen]

What "experts" say masks don't work?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52153145

That was six months ago. Does he still believe that?

How do you explain places like New York, where cases plummeted following the state mandating the wearing of masks in public in April and where most people are actually adhering to mask wearing?

No one is saying masks alone are the panacaea. However, they've been standard practice in health care for decades to reduce the chances of staff infecting patients through exhalation of infectious droplets. Even if they're only 10% effective in reducing COVID transmission, that's still something worth pursuing, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene and so on.

You asked me for an expert who said masks don't work. There;s an expert who said it.

Here's another one.

https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/

So rather than trying to move the goalposts now, why don't you just accept that is significant difference of opinion from the "experts" on whether face masks actually work or not.

What are you on about, "moving the goalposts"?

First, most governments and public health agencies were reluctant to mandate masks for the public back in March and April because of the huge shortages at the time. Its perfectly valid to ask if the guy you posted from England still believes now what he was advocating for in April, especially given the trends in the disease and the increased availability of PPE.

Second, in that link Tegnell specifically refers to the plummeting cases in Sweden at the time (July), and Sweden was trying for herd immunity anyway. Tegnell has plenty of critics within Sweden, where cases have been far higher than its neighbours.

There's always going to be a few who go against the consensus, but you seem to be implying that the public health professionals and scientists are hopelessly confused and there are equal numbers advocating for and against mask wearing. That is not the case.

The absolute effectiveness can only be established through study and experimentation. In the meantime, the responsible thing to do is to err on the side of caution, use what we do know about airborne transmission and masks, and recommend/require their use, along with social distancing and the rest.

It's quite clear, you asked for an expert who disputed masks - I gave you one. You then moved the goalposts to say he changed his mind.

It's perfectly valid in your mind but that's also a subjective view that supports your argument and is not based on anything more than that.

There are plenty of experts who argue that masks are ineffective. The bottom line is that it's a minor inconvenience for most people to wear them so on the small chance they do slow it down experts recommend them but that doesn't mean they are an effective weapon against the virus as the experts are at odds on this - contrary to your wrongly asserted view as I have shown.

1. I did NOT say the English dude changed his mind. I questioned if he had (which you've quoted), given that the link you posted was from April 3. We're discussing this in October. A lot has happened since then. We now have six additional months of knowledge of how the disease works and how to combat and manage it. It would be unprofessional for any scientist or public health professional not to take what happened in that time into account.

2. You haven't shown any wrongly asserted view on my part. You seem to be saying that there are a significant number of experts who advocate against masks, but you haven't shown anything to support that. Tegnell is a very noted exception in this pandemic in that he is not only not recommending masks, but he is way looser with all of the other typical requirements. He is not a typical example. Outside of Scandinavia and China (and Ireland?), most of the planet has some kind of mandatory mask rules. The science may be inconclusive at this point, but they're still correctly erring on the side of caution in their advice.

You question me on what experts said masks don't work.

I provided you with one and then you tried to move the goalposts. I also provided you with another one.

It's clear as day that experts are divided on this, which you disputed so maybe in light of factual evidence of experts publicly voicing this opinion, you should accept that there are two differing fields of thoughts between experts.

Experts will divide on most things given there will always be an outlier somewhere. However if 90% of the experts claim one thing and only 10% the other. I would tend to take my chances with the 90%.

Also just on an aside, Professor Van-Tam has changed his viewpoint on masks. This is from 2 days ago. 

<sup>Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the best way to keep transmission low and stop the NHS being overwhelmed was for people with symptoms to self-isolate and get a test, and for people to wash their hands, wear face coverings and maintain social distancing.

He also said that the country now has much better testing capabilities, knows more about the disease, and has better treatments than during the first wave.</sup>

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-england-has-reached-a-tipping-point-similar-to-first-wave-deputy-chief-medical-officer-says-12101356

I don't have any opinion either way on masks.

I wear them as they are only a minor inconvenience and if they help in any way it's not a problem but it's a classic example of how little clarity science has been able to provide thus far.

You seem to think that if science doesn't have all the answers it is letting us down. And that if the evidence isn't yet there then that is science's fault. And that if people change their mind in response to new or emerging evidence that their flip flopping.

So make a decision on masks, explain it, stick to it even if the evidence changes. That seems to be you attitude so live by it

[Angelo]

Well can you accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that NI mortality rate will be as high in 5-6 weeks as they have been at earlier stages?

I cannot accept that absolutely nobody has claimed that as there are loads of doom merchants out there who do think we are all going to die from it.

As I have said countless times before, the next 5/6 weeks will be telling. The virus is so widespread now up north that we are going to be able to quantify to some regard of how much of a danger it is when that time has passed.

Well you can at least accept that you cannot point to anyone who has claimed that the NI death rate in 5-6 weeks will be as high as it was at earlier stages?

Why are we going into massive lockdown then? It's projected by fear, I can understand that fear, I can understand that fear is the rationale behind more lockdown and restrictive measures but if the data bears out that the sort of consequences are nowhere near the fatality levels of the first wave then I think it will influence how we move forward.

We live with flu every year and it overwhelms the health system, it kills people, some are young, fit and healthy. That seems to be an acceptable risk - at which point does Covid become an acceptable risk. Is 1,000 deaths a year over 300k cases an acceptable risk for argument sake?

[LCohen]

What "experts" say masks don't work?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52153145

That was six months ago. Does he still believe that?

How do you explain places like New York, where cases plummeted following the state mandating the wearing of masks in public in April and where most people are actually adhering to mask wearing?

No one is saying masks alone are the panacaea. However, they've been standard practice in health care for decades to reduce the chances of staff infecting patients through exhalation of infectious droplets. Even if they're only 10% effective in reducing COVID transmission, that's still something worth pursuing, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene and so on.

You asked me for an expert who said masks don't work. There;s an expert who said it.

Here's another one.

https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/

So rather than trying to move the goalposts now, why don't you just accept that is significant difference of opinion from the "experts" on whether face masks actually work or not.

What are you on about, "moving the goalposts"?

First, most governments and public health agencies were reluctant to mandate masks for the public back in March and April because of the huge shortages at the time. Its perfectly valid to ask if the guy you posted from England still believes now what he was advocating for in April, especially given the trends in the disease and the increased availability of PPE.

Second, in that link Tegnell specifically refers to the plummeting cases in Sweden at the time (July), and Sweden was trying for herd immunity anyway. Tegnell has plenty of critics within Sweden, where cases have been far higher than its neighbours.

There's always going to be a few who go against the consensus, but you seem to be implying that the public health professionals and scientists are hopelessly confused and there are equal numbers advocating for and against mask wearing. That is not the case.

The absolute effectiveness can only be established through study and experimentation. In the meantime, the responsible thing to do is to err on the side of caution, use what we do know about airborne transmission and masks, and recommend/require their use, along with social distancing and the rest.

It's quite clear, you asked for an expert who disputed masks - I gave you one. You then moved the goalposts to say he changed his mind.

It's perfectly valid in your mind but that's also a subjective view that supports your argument and is not based on anything more than that.

There are plenty of experts who argue that masks are ineffective. The bottom line is that it's a minor inconvenience for most people to wear them so on the small chance they do slow it down experts recommend them but that doesn't mean they are an effective weapon against the virus as the experts are at odds on this - contrary to your wrongly asserted view as I have shown.

1. I did NOT say the English dude changed his mind. I questioned if he had (which you've quoted), given that the link you posted was from April 3. We're discussing this in October. A lot has happened since then. We now have six additional months of knowledge of how the disease works and how to combat and manage it. It would be unprofessional for any scientist or public health professional not to take what happened in that time into account.

2. You haven't shown any wrongly asserted view on my part. You seem to be saying that there are a significant number of experts who advocate against masks, but you haven't shown anything to support that. Tegnell is a very noted exception in this pandemic in that he is not only not recommending masks, but he is way looser with all of the other typical requirements. He is not a typical example. Outside of Scandinavia and China (and Ireland?), most of the planet has some kind of mandatory mask rules. The science may be inconclusive at this point, but they're still correctly erring on the side of caution in their advice.

You question me on what experts said masks don't work.

I provided you with one and then you tried to move the goalposts. I also provided you with another one.

It's clear as day that experts are divided on this, which you disputed so maybe in light of factual evidence of experts publicly voicing this opinion, you should accept that there are two differing fields of thoughts between experts.

Experts will divide on most things given there will always be an outlier somewhere. However if 90% of the experts claim one thing and only 10% the other. I would tend to take my chances with the 90%.

Also just on an aside, Professor Van-Tam has changed his viewpoint on masks. This is from 2 days ago. 

<sup>Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the best way to keep transmission low and stop the NHS being overwhelmed was for people with symptoms to self-isolate and get a test, and for people to wash their hands, wear face coverings and maintain social distancing.

He also said that the country now has much better testing capabilities, knows more about the disease, and has better treatments than during the first wave.</sup>

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-england-has-reached-a-tipping-point-similar-to-first-wave-deputy-chief-medical-officer-says-12101356

I don't have any opinion either way on masks.

I wear them as they are only a minor inconvenience and if they help in any way it's not a problem but it's a classic example of how little clarity science has been able to provide thus far.

It depends what standard you are holding science to. Science has been working on testing, track and trace, treatment of the virus, vaccines, virus transfer data  and plenty of other things. All this doesn't happen overnight regardless of the global impact. If you were expecting experts to have all the data ready within a month or two then I think you are holding them to impossible standards and they were always doomed to fail. That's not to say they haven't made mistakes, but mistakes when you don't have the right information is understandable.

Yes but we're in a case where time is of the essence.

How much longer can economies sustain the pressure?
How many jobs and industry sectors are going to be wiped out?
How many people face financial hardship as result?
How long are people going to accept their liberties being restricted?

A point is going to come where a certain amount of risk is going to become acceptable because the progress science is making is very slow.

The WHO recently predicted that 10% of the world has been infected at this stage, how much of the world will have contracted it by the time scientists have made the breakthrough? Will it be of little benefit by that time?

In terms of treatments, vaccines and understanding it is critically important that science keeps trying. Blockheads will try to get in the way but we just have to expose their idiocy

On the economic issues how many jobs will be lost if we don't get COVID sorted? What are the prospects for the global or domestic economy if we can't control, significantly treat, cure or vaccinate against Covid?

[Angelo]

What "experts" say masks don't work?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52153145

That was six months ago. Does he still believe that?

How do you explain places like New York, where cases plummeted following the state mandating the wearing of masks in public in April and where most people are actually adhering to mask wearing?

No one is saying masks alone are the panacaea. However, they've been standard practice in health care for decades to reduce the chances of staff infecting patients through exhalation of infectious droplets. Even if they're only 10% effective in reducing COVID transmission, that's still something worth pursuing, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene and so on.

You asked me for an expert who said masks don't work. There;s an expert who said it.

Here's another one.

https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/

So rather than trying to move the goalposts now, why don't you just accept that is significant difference of opinion from the "experts" on whether face masks actually work or not.

What are you on about, "moving the goalposts"?

First, most governments and public health agencies were reluctant to mandate masks for the public back in March and April because of the huge shortages at the time. Its perfectly valid to ask if the guy you posted from England still believes now what he was advocating for in April, especially given the trends in the disease and the increased availability of PPE.

Second, in that link Tegnell specifically refers to the plummeting cases in Sweden at the time (July), and Sweden was trying for herd immunity anyway. Tegnell has plenty of critics within Sweden, where cases have been far higher than its neighbours.

There's always going to be a few who go against the consensus, but you seem to be implying that the public health professionals and scientists are hopelessly confused and there are equal numbers advocating for and against mask wearing. That is not the case.

The absolute effectiveness can only be established through study and experimentation. In the meantime, the responsible thing to do is to err on the side of caution, use what we do know about airborne transmission and masks, and recommend/require their use, along with social distancing and the rest.

It's quite clear, you asked for an expert who disputed masks - I gave you one. You then moved the goalposts to say he changed his mind.

It's perfectly valid in your mind but that's also a subjective view that supports your argument and is not based on anything more than that.

There are plenty of experts who argue that masks are ineffective. The bottom line is that it's a minor inconvenience for most people to wear them so on the small chance they do slow it down experts recommend them but that doesn't mean they are an effective weapon against the virus as the experts are at odds on this - contrary to your wrongly asserted view as I have shown.

1. I did NOT say the English dude changed his mind. I questioned if he had (which you've quoted), given that the link you posted was from April 3. We're discussing this in October. A lot has happened since then. We now have six additional months of knowledge of how the disease works and how to combat and manage it. It would be unprofessional for any scientist or public health professional not to take what happened in that time into account.

2. You haven't shown any wrongly asserted view on my part. You seem to be saying that there are a significant number of experts who advocate against masks, but you haven't shown anything to support that. Tegnell is a very noted exception in this pandemic in that he is not only not recommending masks, but he is way looser with all of the other typical requirements. He is not a typical example. Outside of Scandinavia and China (and Ireland?), most of the planet has some kind of mandatory mask rules. The science may be inconclusive at this point, but they're still correctly erring on the side of caution in their advice.

You question me on what experts said masks don't work.

I provided you with one and then you tried to move the goalposts. I also provided you with another one.

It's clear as day that experts are divided on this, which you disputed so maybe in light of factual evidence of experts publicly voicing this opinion, you should accept that there are two differing fields of thoughts between experts.

Experts will divide on most things given there will always be an outlier somewhere. However if 90% of the experts claim one thing and only 10% the other. I would tend to take my chances with the 90%.

Also just on an aside, Professor Van-Tam has changed his viewpoint on masks. This is from 2 days ago. 

<sup>Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the best way to keep transmission low and stop the NHS being overwhelmed was for people with symptoms to self-isolate and get a test, and for people to wash their hands, wear face coverings and maintain social distancing.

He also said that the country now has much better testing capabilities, knows more about the disease, and has better treatments than during the first wave.</sup>

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-england-has-reached-a-tipping-point-similar-to-first-wave-deputy-chief-medical-officer-says-12101356

I don't have any opinion either way on masks.

I wear them as they are only a minor inconvenience and if they help in any way it's not a problem but it's a classic example of how little clarity science has been able to provide thus far.

You seem to think that if science doesn't have all the answers it is letting us down. And that if the evidence isn't yet there then that is science's fault. And that if people change their mind in response to new or emerging evidence that their flip flopping.

So make a decision on masks, explain it, stick to it even if the evidence changes. That seems to be you attitude so live by it

What I am saying is some people seem to be under the illusion that life stops until science sorts the virus and eradicates it.

That is not happening in the short-medium term, there is no signs of science cracking it any time soon. Life has to go, we have to learn to live with the virus. The second wave is going to be telling but the WHO have criticised governments for using lockdowns to manage the virus.

I think in Feb of next year we will have a much better idea of how serious Covid really is from the data available, we can see fatality rates falling hugely across Europe during the second wave, if that trend continues then we can live with the virus until such time as science finally does get an answer and there is a very good chance science won't get that answer before the virus stops being an issue.

There are plenty of cases of previous viruses burning out before science was able to get the answer to them.

[LCohen]

My view is that it's the schools which are the major factor in spreading COVID, not the hospitality trade.  It's no coincidence schools returned a month ago and here we are now.  What were they expecting, numbers to fall after the schools went back.

What is the evidence for spread in schools?

[LCohen]

My view is that it's the schools which are the major factor in spreading COVID, not the hospitality trade.  It's no coincidence schools returned a month ago and here we are now.  What were they expecting, numbers to fall after the schools went back.

The experts has been flip flopping since day 1 about whether children are spreaders or not.

Which experts are flip flopping?

[Angelo]

In terms of treatments, vaccines and understanding it is critically important that science keeps trying. Blockheads will try to get in the way but we just have to expose their idiocy

On the economic issues how many jobs will be lost if we don't get COVID sorted? What are the prospects for the global or domestic economy if we can't control, significantly treat, cure or vaccinate against Covid?

That's all speculative, neither of us have the answer but do you think it is good for the human race to hide under the bed waiting for science to solve it?

The data on the consequences of the second wave surge in Europe should be the decisive factor on which avenue we take. If the current trends continue then it looks more and more likely we can live with the virus.