Since the very start, when media saw a great story in Wuhan and exaggerated it so as to fill their pages, screens and online sites, we have all inflated this trivial virus. Governments, having neither the time nor the inclination to examine the facts, joined in. Great! New excuses for barmy policies (like Brexit). New ways to stretch all police forces into autocratic neo-military set ups. New ways to borrow money since policies have been shit for decades. New ways to sell austerity to citizens.

So we see, again and again, media interviews with the sobbing bereaved (those whose friends or relatives died from cancer, heart attacks, road accidents are NOT deemed worth using). With "survivors". Figures about deaths FROM Covid (ignore the quantity of other deaths which illustrate this is not a major pandemic).

And the gullibles fall for it. We don't have the time or inclination even to Google the real facts (example; look at the French daily figures; one click on France CoronaVirus) so we obey. And the avalanche rolls on.

600,000 die from cancer each year in the USA. Point out how much less lethal Covid19 has been in that country and media says "that doesn't lessen the tragedy..." or "but cancer isn't infectious..." or some other simplistic, superficial, pointless excuse to believe the hype.

Suggest protecting and treating the vulnerable better is howled down as a conspiracy theory. Common sense is sneered at.

Media likes the other extreme too "Mad people think we are all lizards and Covid19 is a hoax". It's also a good story.

The truth, somewhere in the middle, is NOT a good story. A nasty virus for some requiring sensible reaction as in Sweden (preferably also protecting the elderly) is the correct way to go.

As illustrated by the facts; yes of course it is tragic when anybody dies of anything (I suspect Old Age is the biggest killer) but America has a far better Deaths to Infections ratio than many countries and especially than the Death Five European countries which, before we discovered how to treat it, had a 25% death rate.

While of course we have known about this problem for a long time, at last a major BBC news item about the millions being put at risk, and the tens of thousands who will die, through delayed cancer screenings, and a personal story to boot!:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55234280

Of course they are still saying it is caused by the pandemic rather than lockdown;, but we can't hope for miracles with these people....

JK2006 wrote:
A nasty virus for some requiring sensible reaction as in Sweden (preferably also protecting the elderly) is the correct way to go.

This week the Swedish prime minister apologised for their reaction to the virus and admits they got it wrong. Not odften a politician admits a mistake

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/15/sw...-of-covid-resurgence

And indeed they did get it wrong by not protecting or treating the elderly nearly as well as they should have but in nearly every other way they did it far better than most other places whose deaths to cases ratio is many times worse even after stricter lockdowns and other measures.

JK2006 wrote:
And indeed they did get it wrong by not protecting or treating the elderly nearly as well as they should have but in nearly every other way they did it far better than most other places whose deaths to cases ratio is many times worse even after stricter lockdowns and other measures.

The majority of the elderly (over 70’s and over 80’s) are not in care homes and therefore just part of the general population. It is easy to say just protect that group but the only way that could have been done would be by compulsory shielding which unfortunately would have required lots of support and care workers to monitor those isolating and during the early phase there was a shortage of qualified staff and PPE

Your proposal of protecting the elderly is a sound one in theory but the practicalities of a differential approach are much greater than a total lockdown. It should always be remembered that back in March/April this was a fast moving situation involving a new and not fully researched virus.

BB wrote:
It should always be remembered that back in March/April this was a fast moving situation involving a new and not fully researched virus.

Yes - a totally unknown virus or disease.

With unknown origin, treatment, symptoms, makeup, cure or potency.

But spectacularly infectious.

Multiple errors and blind allies were inevitable - however, amazingly, a vaccine was available in 9 months.

Alison wrote:
[quote]BB wrote:
It should always be remembered that back in March/April


But it's not March/April now and we are still heading up blind allies and repeating the same mistakes over again; because they can't admit how wrong they got it.

They are not wrong about what the virus is but rather it's mortality threat over and above existing seasonal deaths that involve respiratory issues.

This threat is statistically negligible. Even a glance at the data reveals this...

Wyot wrote:
they can't admit how wrong they got it

Nobody is suggesting that all decisions were right, but getting close to 1.75m deaths isn't a negligible matter.

This virus kills, but is particularly (and more) adept at quickly eradicating those with illnesses already.

In itself, this virus is trivial but - acting as a parasite and catalyst - it piggybacks on existing defects to kill.

Alison wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:


getting close to 1.75m deaths isn't a negligible matter.


I would politely invite you to read more carefully Alison, because I said no such thing.

I said the threat to individuals is statistically negligible. A completely different sentence with a completely different meaning.

You have to look at how many deaths there would have been since March anyway, of what types and how they have been classified to have a meaningful discussion on this.

There is of course a discussion to be had.

But the meaningful variety is rare as the panda...

You accept though the parasitic and catalystic qualities/abilities of the coranovirus which allow it to piggyback onto existing vulnerabilities and diseases.

These aren't unique, but allow this relatively impotent (even trivial) virus to affect the weak worldwide - whilst enhancing its almost unrivalled infectiouness.

I call it a parasite virus; it left my body fast (even showing negative for antibodies) but affected my joints and other parts.

In the Covid aftermath, the most common signs and symptoms are fatigue and shortness of breath.

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Alison wrote:
Wyot wrote:


getting close to 1.75m deaths isn't a negligible matter.


I would politely invite you to read more carefully Alison, because I said no such thing.

I said the threat to individuals is statistically negligible. A completely different sentence with a completely different meaning.

You have to look at how many deaths there would have been since March anyway, of what types and how they have been classified to have a meaningful discussion on this.

There is of course a discussion to be had.



But the meaningful variety is rare as the panda...

The threat to "individuals" is different for each person. A high threat for me, maybe no threat to you.

It might not matter much to the population as a whole, but it bloody well matters when young people with their whole lives ahead of them are killed by it, as I have seen.

This doesn't mean that it is right for governments to take away liberties and deliberately put people out of business, but I would have been on board for a short and dramatic effort to get rid of it in the beginning.
Too late now, obviously, and I blame the government for the needless deaths.

I thought the vast majority testing positive for Covid19 had no symptoms at all, present or future. And Honey - yes; early repression temporarily suffocates it but it seems that, eventually, it emerges and kills some of the vulnerable. Look at Germany. Even so, in all but the Death Five it has been under 5% of those who caught it. Like a bad flu season. Fewer than an average cancer year. And just as easily dealt with as Cancer (stop smoking).

Germany today. And last "wave".

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Alison wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:


The threat to "individuals" is different for each person. A high threat for me, maybe no threat to you.



Yes of course Honey, within the individual risk ranges, it varies for people depending on health. But the statistics overall against other mortality risks do not make this virus exceptional.

I have lost a dear friend to this who was only middle aged but with significant health issues. And for this reason I feel strongly about being misquoted (not saying deliberately) in this way by any poster.

I would never suggest any death is negligible. Whether from cancer, road death, bee stings, heart attack or "linked" to C19.

I know you understand the difference between statistical analysis and individual empathy, but increasingly these days a lot of people don't seem to...

It is important because to not do so kills real debate.

They are repeatedly using the wrong method of controlling it.

You can either use infection control, where you educate everyone in the importance of cutting the contamination chain, etc, or you can use behaviour control to reduce opportunities to catch it, which has been a spectacular failure.

Cant we just step back, wash hands, vulnerable in protective masks, and just get on with things and stop the ridiculousness?

Alison wrote:
You accept though the parasitic and catalystic qualities/abilities of the coranovirus which allow it to piggyback onto existing vulnerabilities and diseases.

These aren't unique, but allow this relatively impotent (even trivial) virus to affect the weak worldwide - whilst enhancing its almost unrivalled infectiouness.

Yes I accept that the vulnerable, whether through age or health conditions, are more susceptible to the mortality threat of viruses; whether C19, flu or otherwise.

"Catalytic" sounds dramatic - all viruses compromise the immune system as the body fights infections. This can result in death.

I don't know whether its infectiousness is "unrivalled" but it would seem it is highly infectious, of course.

I don't see how this is related to my post though? I have not said C19 isn't dangerous to some. I haven't said that it isn't infectious.

Yes, this virus seems to cause a significant element of its fatalities by exacerbating the features of pre-existing conditions - its parasitic qualities are therefore significant.

And that which singles the coranovirus out (from most other viruses) - together with its powerful infection capabilites. Its ability to mutate is currently being assessed under many microscopes.

catalystic*...almost*