Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

We have 'flu vaccines to try to aid with that - we don't have a Covid-19 vaccine. Surely you understand that key and absolutely massive difference?  It's why it's not necessary to lock down every time we have a 'flu outbreak, but it is during the current outbreak of Covid-19. It's very different.  Of course, the 'flu is mutating every single year and therefore sadly, there are still deaths, but many are prevented. That's not to say every death is not tragic - it is.

But Covid-19 and 'flu are not the same thing, due to the current lack of vaccine for one of them. 

An average of 34,000 people have died between Jan and the end of March over the last five years. from flu/pneumonia.

Sure, there's a vaccine but that will only cover one of the strains and even then isn't guaranteed... and as a result 34,000 people are dying.

So why do we not lock down? After all, those deaths are caused from social contact.

Effectively, what you are saying is, those 34,000 don't count.

 

Edited by BWitcher
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

When flu killed 28,500 people in the UK in 2014/15, was there a case for some sort of lockdown the following winter?

 

You're underplaying it. That's just flu... it doesn't include pneumonia deaths which are another 100,000 or so deaths. At least 1/3 of which come from flu.. the rest from other viruses contracted from social contact.

So basically 100,000+ deaths.. no lockdown necessary. They're expendable.

Edited by BWitcher
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am coming round to accepting the theory that we should have let the virus run it's course. It would have swept away up to 250,000 vulnerable and elderly but I think that the cure ( economically ) is going to be much more costly than the disease, in the long term for the rest of society. I would have been ( may well be ) one of those VE people who pass away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, waytogo28 said:

I am coming round to accepting the theory that we should have let the virus run it's course. It would have swept away up to 250,000 vulnerable and elderly but I think that the cure ( economically ) is going to be much more costly than the disease, in the long term for the rest of society. I would have been ( may well be ) one of those VE people who pass away.

 

There is no evidence that it would have killed 250,000.

And could we not have protected the vulnerable and elderly sooner and with better measures?  We could see from Italy that they were especially at risk.  We might have had only 20,000 deaths then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

There is no evidence that it would have killed 250,000.

And could we not have protected the vulnerable and elderly sooner and with better measures?  We could see from Italy that they were especially at risk.  We might have had only 20,000 deaths then.

 

There is no true evidence that it would have killed any number. That is the problem. We are dealing with a disease that is not properly understood and every body is playing catch up based on models, assumption, experience and inspired guesses. The top line figures ( one of which estimated half a million deaths ) assumed no action taken at all but of course action is taken but it is a blunt instrument and nobody quite knew in advance how effective it would be.

We can’t protect the elderly. They, like everyone else have to exercise good sense and protect themselves. Going on cruises, and taking their camper vans down to Newquay or going to  off the gee-gees at Cheltenham, all of which many have done is not really good sense.

Unfortunately the government can’t rely on common sense among the population as a whole. They have to work to and advise to the lowest common denominator, and the more stupid the behaviour of the minority the lower the lowest common denominator has to be, even though it is a pain to the rest.

Edited by E I Addio
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BWitcher said:

You're underplaying it. That's just flu... it doesn't include pneumonia deaths which are another 100,000 or so deaths. At least 1/3 of which come from flu.. the rest from other viruses contracted from social contact.

So basically 100,000+ deaths.. no lockdown necessary. They're expendable.

Do you think a Lockdown for the over 70s only for a period Witcher could of been an option? .All resources kept for that age group and go from there one of my friends Rod who was 75 on April 2nd said he has to go out for a walk.He is crawling the walls he knows he is vulnerable but feels WEAKER by not having his usual regular exercise as you said the virus breeds inside confined spaces.

Edited by Sidney the robin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

There is no evidence that it would have killed 250,000.

And could we not have protected the vulnerable and elderly sooner and with better measures?  We could see from Italy that they were especially at risk.  We might have had only 20,000 deaths then.

 

No evidence on any number. It could have killed 2 million without a lockdown. We just don't know. We have to rely on the medical experts on how we deal with a virus for which we don't have a vaccine. None of us are experts. What I do understand is that it's R (the re-infection rate) which is the critical number.  But we have to listen to medical and scientific advice. You're not an expert. Neither am I.

Edited by lucifer sam
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

No evidence on any number. It could have killed 2 million without a lockdown. We just don't know. We have to rely on the medical experts on how we deal with a virus for which we don't have a vaccine. None of us are experts. What I do understand is that it's R (the re-infection rate) which is the critical number.  But we have to listen to medical and scientific advice. You're not an expert. Neither am I.

Neither is Ferguson going by his dubious record of failed 'modelling'. We are the experiment imo, not Sweden. I don't think people are grasping the catastrophic financial and social implications of this lockdown...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

We can’t protect the elderly. They, like everyone else have to exercise good sense and protect themselves.

Going on cruises, and taking their camper vans down to Newquay or going to  off the gee-gees at Cheltenham, all of which many have done is not really good sense.

 

Of course we could protect the elderly and those with vulnerable medical conditions.

The government told 1.5 million vulnerable people they would have to isolate for 12 weeks.

That was a month too late and 15 million people too few.

Every person over 65 or ill should be under special measures. 

Regularly tested.

No contact with others who have not been tested.

Support workers and their families to be restricted in their movements (and not allowed to shop).

No deliveries that have not been disinfected.

But encouraged to take in exercise, fresh air and sun in their gardens, not locked indoors.

The rest of us could then have enjoyed a lighter touch with sensible measures and continued to work.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

Of course we could protect the elderly and those with vulnerable medical conditions.

The government told 1.5 million vulnerable people they would have to isolate for 12 weeks.

That was a month too late and 15 million people too few.

Every person over 65 or ill should be under special measures. 

Regularly tested.

No contact with others who have not been tested.

Support workers and their families to be restricted in their movements (and not allowed to shop).

No deliveries that have not been disinfected.

But encouraged to take in exercise, fresh air and sun in their gardens, not locked indoors.

The rest of us could then have enjoyed a lighter touch with sensible measures and continued to work.

 

And those who are 64 ? Do they suddenly start staying in ? Like a lot of things in this, any figures will be completely arbitrary .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E I Addio said:

And those who are 64 ? Do they suddenly start staying in ? Like a lot of things in this, any figures will be completely arbitrary .

 

Not as arbitrary as keeping the whole population isolated and the economy stalled without a compelling reason.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blupanther said:

Neither is Ferguson going by his dubious record of failed 'modelling'. We are the experiment imo, not Sweden. I don't think people are grasping the catastrophic financial and social implications of this lockdown...

Some are grasping it some aren’t. Same with the social distance rules. Some are behaving sensibly others as if they have a death wish. That is a big part of the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Some are grasping it some aren’t. Same with the social distance rules. Some are behaving sensibly others as if they have a death wish. That is a big part of the problem

 

“Death wish”?

You are perpetuating a myth

While people sunbathing in public parks may quite rightly be criticised for not following government guidelines, they are almost certainly not passing on the virus to each other, let alone being guilty of having a “death wish”.

Contact is much closer in a supermarket and yet that is not a “death wish”.

Edited by DC2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

Some are grasping it some aren’t. Same with the social distance rules. Some are behaving sensibly others as if they have a death wish. That is a big part of the problem

I had to go to the bank last week, Barclays and NatWest. Obviously I had to queue outside. While in each queue, I witnessed a gaggle of men, around 2 maybe 3, shaking the hand of someone in the queue. Nobody said anything, including me. If I had said something, I could end up having an argument or worse, which would ramp up the danger for us all who were in the queues. By the way, not sure if this is significant, but in both cases the men spoke in a foreign language. 

Edited by Ray Stadia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E I Addio said:

There is no true evidence that it would have killed any number. That is the problem. We are dealing with a disease that is not properly understood and every body is playing catch up based on models, assumption, experience and inspired guesses. The top line figures ( one of which estimated half a million deaths ) assumed no action taken at all but of course action is taken but it is a blunt instrument and nobody quite knew in advance how effective it would be.

We can’t protect the elderly. They, like everyone else have to exercise good sense and protect themselves. Going on cruises, and taking their camper vans down to Newquay or going to  off the gee-gees at Cheltenham, all of which many have done is not really good sense.

Unfortunately the government can’t rely on common sense among the population as a whole. They have to work to and advise to the lowest common denominator, and the more stupid the behaviour of the minority the lower the lowest common denominator has to be, even though it is a pain to the rest.

You're right there is no true evidence, a bit like the consequences of Brexit, some think it'll be a dawn of a new golden era other's think it'll be the end of the country, truth is we just don't know until it happens. The difference with this pandemic though is that there have been scientific models done based on good data, taking me back to one of my original posts in this thread regarding the BBC Pandemic program that aired a couple of years back and certainly got my alarm bells ringing when all this kicked off. That model said that if the whole country suffered a "standard" flu pandemic with a mortality rate of 1% and no action taken there would be around 500,000 deaths, that was based on "standard" flu where symptoms show within hours of you catching the virus, as we know it can take a couple of weeks for this virus to present and although we don't know for sure the mortality rate seems to be a lot higher than 1%... so add half a million for every percentage point increase in mortality rate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy