IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Back in February, seeing the virus take hold in China, I ordered a face mask; re-usable, expensive (£17), tight fitting, triple filter. When it arrived I sprayed it with alcohol. I do so every time after washing. Now in late October WHICH reveals the best masks (99%) are those which do all the things mine did/does. Where has common sense gone in humanity?
It’s a pity your other hero The Donald doesn’t have the sense to wear, and be seen to be wearing a surgical grade face mask too. Perhaps they could make him one to match his red MAGA baseball hat! Unlike you, he’s still in denial about how serious this virus is, claiming that they’ve turned the corner and that it’s gonna just go away. He should never have read that book “The Power of Positive Delusion” for sure ...
It certainly isn’t trivial to the minority who die, their relatives and those that suffer really badly with it and its long term consequences (long COVID). Fortunately, we are civilised enough to want to protect everybody, albeit after the horse has bolted. Taking the gamble of targeting only those who we believe are the most vulnerable is a very dangerous strategy indeed because we don’t really know who the most vulnerable are. Diabetics, people over 65 and those with serious underlying conditions certainly, but there are still too many unknowns. The powers that be are learning that immunity doesn’t last, and also that the virus has mutated in Spain from tests carried out on agricultural workers over there. You rightly point out that the virus is now out of control, way beyond what the models predicted but targeted safeguarding wouldn’t have stopped this.
I spoke to an uncle at a funeral recently who when pressed by me for a prognosis said,“basically we’re fucked”. He is a retired micro biologist who worked at Porton Down laboratory in his younger years. I think I’ll settle for his opinion over yours Ken.
Feel free to do so; I know nothing.
No cause of death is trivial to those who die. But some viruses are more trivial than others to those who don't.
EBOLA seems very serious; often lethal.
So was Flu when it started.
Covid19 appears to me far less so and getting less and less lethal.
But as I said; I know nothing. I just observe and make my opinions based on common sense & lateral thinking.
Clive Marshall wrote: It certainly isn’t trivial to the minority who die, their relatives
Clive -
Following your logic would you shut down social and economic life during a bad flu season (2018 e.g) when vaccines aren't effective and tens of thousands died? (I am not saying it is the same as flu..) Or consider banning all use of motor vehicles and planes due to the tens of thousands of deaths from poor air quality a year?
In both cases a significant minority of the population die, and as with Covid (which I don't believe any conspiracies about and is obviously nasty and lethal to a minority), this is also terrible for their grieving relatives.
If you wouldn't respond in this way - specifically why not?
Following your logic would you shut down social and economic life during a bad flu season ...
No, for the simple reason that we have vaccines (flu jabs) available to us through the NHS and high street chemists to protect ourselves against the latest strains doing the rounds.
Once we have a vaccine for COVID there will be no need for lockdowns.
Wyot wrote: Clive Marshall wrote: It certainly isn’t trivial to the minority who die, their relatives
Clive -
Following your logic would you shut down social and economic life during a bad flu season (2018 e.g) when vaccines aren't effective and tens of thousands died? (I am not saying it is the same as flu..) Or consider banning all use of motor vehicles and planes due to the tens of thousands of deaths from poor air quality a year?
In both cases a significant minority of the population die, and as with Covid (which I don't believe any conspiracies about and is obviously nasty and lethal to a minority), this is also terrible for their grieving relatives.
If you wouldn't respond in this way - specifically why not?
I think Clive enjoys the lockdowns I guess. I wonder if people who did the biggest sucide over lockdown were marked under Covid on the death certificate ? I havent seen too many not wearing the face masks and those who don't have the excemption laynards on.
Following your logic would you shut down social and economic life during a bad flu season ...
No, for the simple reason that we have vaccines (flu jabs) available to us through the NHS and high street chemists to protect ourselves against the latest strains doing the rounds.
Once we have a vaccine for COVID there will be no need for lockdowns.
Right...guess you are not going to take on the actual question I posed, rather than the question you wanted to answer.
Fair enough; it is a hard one.
Glad you are enjoying crap TV during lockdown though!
Clive Marshall wrote: It certainly isn’t trivial to the minority who die, their relatives and those that suffer really badly with it and its long term consequences (long COVID). Fortunately, we are civilised enough to want to protect everybody, albeit after the horse has bolted. Taking the gamble of targeting only those who we believe are the most vulnerable is a very dangerous strategy indeed because we don’t really know who the most vulnerable are. Diabetics, people over 65 and those with serious underlying conditions certainly, but there are still too many unknowns. The powers that be are learning that immunity doesn’t last, and also that the virus has mutated in Spain from tests carried out on agricultural workers over there. You rightly point out that the virus is now out of control, way beyond what the models predicted but targeted safeguarding wouldn’t have stopped this.
I spoke to an uncle at a funeral recently who when pressed by me for a prognosis said,“basically we’re fucked”. He is a retired micro biologist who worked at Porton Down laboratory in his younger years. I think I’ll settle for his opinion over yours Ken.
Your uncle came no nearer to finding a cure for the common cold than Mr King did!
Following your logic would you shut down social and economic life during a bad flu season ...
No, for the simple reason that we have vaccines (flu jabs) available to us through the NHS and high street chemists to protect ourselves against the latest strains doing the rounds.
Once we have a vaccine for COVID there will be no need for lockdowns.
Right...guess you are not going to take on the actual question I posed, rather than the question you wanted to answer.
Fair enough; it is a hard one.
Glad you are enjoying crap TV during lockdown though!
Lock down for flu: No, because we have vaccines for the flu and people can stay at home from schools and work when they get it.
Lockdown for COVID: Yes, because we do not have vaccine(s) yet, the infection rate is going mad, lives will be saved, and the NHS’ ICUs could get overwhelmed. Being over-cautious is preferable to being laid back.
The economy can be kept going through the furlough scheme and other mechanisms such as suspending business rates, suspending forced evictions, loan holidays etc. When the pandemic ends, the government can kickstart the economy through infrastructure projects, extending short-them VAT breaks, and a slew of other creative methods - possible with printed money!
I think you miss the point Clive. Lockdowns would have been overkill in the many years before they found a Flu vaccine. Lockdowns would be absurd for the common cold. There are many infectious diseases and Covid19 is by far less lethal than many others and getting more trivial every day. Yes it is currently more infectious but since it is trivial to 95%, extreme social measures can be far more damaging than the virus.
Clive Marshall wrote: Just to recap and clarify my answer:
Lock down for flu: No, because we have vaccines for the flu and people can stay at home from schools and work when they get it.
Lockdown for COVID: Yes, because we do not have vaccine(s) yet, the infection rate is going mad, lives will be saved, and the NHS’ ICUs could get overwhelmed. Being over-cautious is preferable to being laid back.
The economy can be kept going through the furlough scheme and other mechanisms such as suspending business rates, suspending forced evictions, loan holidays etc. When the pandemic ends, the government can kickstart the economy through infrastructure projects, extending short-them VAT breaks, and a slew of other creative methods - possible with printed money!
With the best will in the world, Clive, it is going to take a damn sight more than a few VAT breaks to revive all the stone dead smaller shops and businesses.
-Accepted deaths through road fatalities Vs benefits of travel.
-Accepted deaths through smoking, junk food, alcohol Vs personal freedom over one's own body.
-Accepted deaths through industrial pollution Vs economic benefits.
All of the above could be stopped and hundreds of thousands of lives saved by Gov decree starting Thursday. Backed up by some truly scary graphs.
But we choose instead to take a realistic approach to them, working to reduce their impact while being grown up enough to know that (sadly) people do actually die.
The BBC should spend as much time reviewing and warning about the impact of lockdown as they do on the latest Covid infection projections.
Until then let's not pretend among grown up intelligent people that the media does not have a huge impact on this, and public policy.
Gov press conferences similarly should show as many graphs on lockdown deaths as they do their infection forecasts. Then the PM can explain why he is making a choice over what kind of deaths he is prioritising (lockdown or covid ones) rather than presenting himself as the passive agent of events.
Maybe the price is worth paying and Covid should be treated as an exception among possible deaths?
Covid is as much a philosophical and moral question as a practical one about ventilator unit numbers, or the impossibly stupid "health or wealth?" dichotomy.
Why pick one kind of death over another people? It is the only question in town.
I have yet to see anyone take it on; anywhere. Just the superficial questions; the low hanging fruit.
Still, let's try and enjoy our lockdown days as much as possible!
We don't live in the old days, back when people died of "old age" for want of a better description. I have a sneaking suspicion that my g.grandfather who died in 1919 aged 52 (the same age as me), contracted the Spanish Flu which was shown on his death certificate as pneumonia and heart failure. A lockdown might have saved his and many other lives at the time. If I had been around then, my view of lockdowns would have been exactly the same as it is today.
Of course, had he died of smoking related cancer, it would likely have been down to him smoking and not air pollution.
Forums 
