Covid-19 Virus

There are morons out there, sure - but there are also plenty of sensible people who believe the case for existing, let alone further, restrictions is unproven. They won't be flouting the guidelines because of stupdity or selfishness, but rather because they are unconvinced of the need for all of them (or that the benefit of them outweighs the cost). Some have posted on this very thread. It is those people to whom the government really needs to be making a clearer case.

(I exclude myself from this because I am enormously risk-averse and predisposed to abide by rules).

 

Worth bearing in mind that the UK's population density is about 20 times higher than that of New Zealand. It does introduce additional significant challenges, and I suspect we'd struggle to operate as aggressively as NZ can due to how much easier it is for the virus to spread in the UK; when you're talking about an exponentially growing virus that's a very significant factor.

Not that this changes whether or not certain individuals are acting responsibly, mind.

 

The word "expert" makes people go all misty eyed. When I did jury service one of the cases I was on was almost derailed completely because of the completely incorrect testimony of an "expert" in fire doors. Nothing I said would convince some of my fellow jury that this bloke could be wrong. It turned out he was very wrong.

Some "experts" can be as dangerous as the morons running around with masks under their noses.

 

I’m sure this is true, but unfortunately a number of people mistrust ‘experts’ simply because their expert opinion conflicts with their own skewed view of things.

 

Taking the approximate number of UK deaths as a percentage of the population its actually slightly higher. More like 99.3 per cent

 

No, but I do have access to a calculator.

 

I'm assuming you don't have a 'numerate' degree?

You can't see the difference between asking the question "How many deaths could be avoided by January if strict circuit breaker curbs are imposed from 24 October to 7 November?" to two different groups of 'experts': (a) the denizens lounge bar of Gammonspoons at 10AM or (b) a team of scientists, mathematicians and statisticians tasked with numerical modelling when the questioner already knows what they're demanding is little better than "How long's a piece of string?"

Sample Answers:
Group (a): "Dunno."
Group (b): "...between 3,000 and 107,000..."

FWIW: I'll let the cat out of the bag: all of my 'professional' (sic.) colleagues (even the biologists FFS!) laugh at all of the 'pictures' the government produce in their briefings - they can't really be described as 'graphs'...

 

So if you don't die your perfectly fine?

 

I distrust expert predictions, because the success rate of expert predictions is appallingly bad. Expert opinion is also far from immune to political interference, for example as the ‘expert opinion‘ given prior to the illegal war on Iraq showed.

I think the government and the experts got this wrong from the start, as have most governments, for reasons given months ago.

 

The fact that some people will feel unwell for a while is no reason to shut down the country

 

I don't, no. And I also appreciate an answer is sometimes only reflective of the quality of the question asked.

My point though isn't that their science is in doubt or their modelling wrong. In fact I imagine given the wide range they've offered they're almost certain to be right. The issue I have is that they're promoting it to me and the rest of the great unwashed as if it's supposed to be a warning klaxon, when I think they'd be better off saying "we don't really know".

 

3k to 107k adds zero value. If that is the output a better answer to the question is “cannot determine”. Whatever work was done to arrive at this huge range was a complete waste of time.

 

@Lloyd's making a valid point but very clumsily.

A better analogy would to consider, the extremely distasteful, soldier's dilemma: a lone, hidden, soldier, with a single bullet, sees an approaching group of enemy soldiers - what's better for his/her army's overall strategy does he aim to kill or aim to wound? Kill and that's one enemy 'neutralised', wound and that's also one enemy 'neutralised' but it takes a 'bunch' of enemy soldiers to cure/care for the wounded soldier...

We have a health-care system that 'runs' on a 85+% occupancy/usage rate (figure pulled out of my arse). That doesn't give a lot of leeway when it's flooded/overwhelmed by 'hordes' of extremely vulnerable (demographic for maximum 'negative patient outcome' for c19) and seriously 'ill' 'consumers' requiring lengthy and complex care.

 

'They' are not. (Some of) their research data/results/conclusions is being 'spun' for a political 'message'.

If you truly believe that then can I remind you that (my local) Gammonspoons has been open for 34 mins.

 

Did you know that you can use the numbers to write out “Boobies”? Try it!

 

Are you absolutely sure 'they' are not?

https://news.sky.com/story/thousand...k-lockdown-is-imposed-scientists-say-12103578

"They told the Financial Times they will be publishing a joint paper on Wednesday...."

It very much appears like they've been courting media attention and actively promoting their analysis, no?

 

Cor! Fnarr! Boobies! Lol!

 

No 'credible' researcher would 'big up' a pre-print ie something the hasn't undergone peer review.

I detect the unseen hands of a university's (usually spectacularly inept) PR team or that of the 'customer' who've 'commissioned' the research.

 

I think would be interesting to hear how a politician would put that over to the public and explain what is then likely to happen.

Further restrictions or a lockdown are pretty poor prospects. Most of us have had enough. Unfortunately our first steps out of it have led to a galloping infection rate. Anyone who wishes to choose to carry on as we have been or relax further needs to be able to explain,

where this is likely to lead over the winter (not just for health outcomes but also economic ones) and
how to protect the vulnerable.

No easy choices right now.

 

They'd surely do what Boris did in March. "You may expect to lose some loved ones", but we need to get the country going again.

 

But giving many people permanent lung scarring is.

For every person who died "because of pre existing conditions and would have died soon anyway" there are now people who have a pre existing condition for the rest of their lives.

 

Thank you kindly, guvnor. You'll 'ave to excuse me poor way with words

 

So that's Tier 2 for London from 0.01 Saturday

 

That's your view. I disagree

 

How many is 'many'?

 

I’m sorry but that’s not the same as your original claim that “for 99 per cent of the population Covid is pretty harmless”. There is no way of telling if the virus is harmless to an individual until they are infected.

 

OK. For clarity - "for more than 99 per cent of those who have contracted it, the virus has not proved fatal. The severity of symptoms has varied from one individual to another but, in the vast majority of cases, people make a full recovery within a relatively short time"

 

This is something we need to know. The figures about how (un)likely you are to die have been publicised hugely from the government and WHO since the start, but I still haven't seen much information about how likely you are to suffer from these long term effects.

Saw the report yesterday of the man (fit and well) who permanently lost his hearing to due covid. Lots of reports of loss of eyesight, fatigue, and 100 other effects. But not much on how likely you are to suffer these long term symptoms.

 

Well, presumably precisely because they are long term, the likelihood can't easily be estimated yet?

 

My brother for one. But hey-ho. He'll live. Probably.

 

How many from the confirmed cases in March still have symptoms 7 months on? What kind of symptoms are they suffering? How severe are they?

Do we know this? If not, why not?

 

No one (sane) is disputing that people are suffering after effects from a brush with Covid. I'm sorry to hear about your brother. But it's overall number that matters when public policy decisions are being made that will impact millions.

 

Point is, we have absolutely no idea of the numbers.