SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Di Maria's angel]

 

[nickm]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Bloke on my train was sneezing and not covering his mouth. Some people are think cnuts

It is absolute certainty that there is going to be violence on a bus,m train or tube over this eventually. Someone will get a kicking for coughing.

 

[Dante]

You tell me, you are the one arguing for the governments approach, which is this.

You said it was the only way. So explain it.

It's spelled out here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

Do you think every sick person whould go to hospital or should they sleep outdoors?

 

[Di Maria's angel]

So you want those around you to spend all day at home with you?

Do you have any evidence to show that a lockdown causes more community infections?

The word from most Asian countries who acted swiftly with slightly more extreme measures is that they have this under control.

 

[Dante]

Do you have any evidence to show that a lockdown causes more community infections?

The word from most Asian countries who acted swiftly with slightly more extreme measures is that they have this under control.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

At 3 min 50 secs

But watch the rest of the video to understand why those precise measures aren't possible in the UK.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

It's spelled out here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

Do you think every sick person whould go to hospital or should they sleep outdoors?

I asked you. You have defended the government and also said that we shouldn't isolate at home.

So which is it, because government policy is to isolate at home, which means with your familt.

This is boris johnsons strategy.

If you don;t like it why are you constantly telling us hes doing everything right?

The answer of course, is that we should have measures in place that replicate China's successful approach. But that means spending money.

 

[Hugh Jass]

If, like me, you hadn't actually heard what was going on in China beyond "lockdown", this is quite informative.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Scary as feck.

 

[Dante]

I asked you. You have defended the government and also said that we shouldn't isolate at home.

So which is it, because government policy is to isolate at home, which means with your familt.

This is boris johnsons strategy.

If you don;t like it why are you constantly telling us hes doing everything right?

The answer of course, is that we should have measures in place that replicate China's successful approach. But that means spending money.

It's not Boris Johnson's strategy. It's the strategy of the following people:

Expert advice and guidance

The UK government and the devolved administrations have ensured that all of our actions are based on the best possible evidence, and are guided by the 4 UK CMOs.


The UK health departments’ preparations and response are developed with expert advice, ensuring that staff, patients and the wider public can be confident that our plans are developed and implemented using the best available evidence. These groups include:

• the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) – chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and co-chaired by the CMO for England – provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers during emergencies, ensuring that timely and co-ordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the UK Cabinet Office Briefing Room
• the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) is an expert committee of DHSC and advises the CMOs and, through the CMOs, ministers, DHSC and other government departments, and the devolved administrations. It provides scientific risk assessment and mitigation advice on the threat posed by new and emerging respiratory virus threats and on options for their management
• the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) provides independent scientific advice to the Health and Safety Executive, to ministers in DHSC and DEFRA, and to their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on all aspects of hazards and risks to workers and others from exposure to pathogens
• the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) gives expert advice to DHSC and wider UK government and the devolved administrations on scientific matters relating to the UK’s response to an influenza pandemic (or other emerging human infectious disease threats). The advice is based on infectious disease modelling and epidemiology
• the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advises UK health departments on immunisation
• FCO Travel Advice is informed by PHE and DHSC advice and gives British nationals advice on what they need to know before deciding whether to travel and what to do if they are affected by an outbreak of COVID-19 while travelling

You're falling into the trap of believing there's a perfect solution. The point is that isn't one.

And I asked you: what should sick people do? Sleep outside or go to hospital en masse?

 

[Di Maria's angel]

Still not sure what to make of it - why haven't we taken any action? The death rate outside of China is 0.003% thus most people are recovering well.

Nows the time to act but we don't, as a country, seem to be too bothered.

I posted this exactly a month ago. Could see this coming from a mile away.

 

[nickm]

Do you have any evidence to show that a lockdown causes more community infections?

The word from most Asian countries who acted swiftly with slightly more extreme measures is that they have this under control.

For now. We don't know if they have solved this or just delayed it.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

It's not Boris Johnson's strategy. It's the strategy of the following people:

Whose advice is to self isolate at home with family.

Which you now say is bad. In fact, claimed that it was wishing death on people.

So which is right?

 

[sullydnl]

How many of those 38% have kids who couldn’t look after themselves?

Or someone else who couldn’t look after those kids?

No idea but as I say, it wouldn't have to be a particularly high amount to be a concern.

Plus even if they do have other people to take care of them, you then have to ask who those people are. If it is some sort of daycare scenario with multiple kids then the effectiveness of closing schools is reduced, if it's older (more vulnerable) family members than the risk of them becoming infected by the kids is increased.

But very specifically in regards to the UK, I suspect the main argument against closing schools is one they're reluctant to openly make, which is that their plan actively depends on a lot of kids becoming sick. The plan is to deliberately allow a large section of the population to become ill to generate this "herd immunity" they keep referencing and kids are the ideal part of that herd given they're likely to catch/spread the virus but unlikely to become seriously ill.

 

[Dante]

Whose advice is to self isolate at home with family.

Which you now say is bad. In fact, claimed that it was wishing death on people.

So which is right?

Read the government policy that I posted earlier.

It's a phased response.

Self-isolation is a step in the containment phase so that the initial spread can be controlled into manageable clusters.

School closures is a step in the delay phase so that the clusters don't envelope the whole of society.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk

What should sick people do? Sleep outside or go to hospital en masse?

 

[Di Maria's angel]

For now. We don't know if they have solved this or just delayed it.

The whole idea was to control infections as quick as possible. Limit the infection, know your cases and most importantly, implement social distancing.

I've spoken to my Chinese colleague and he states, that in Shanghai, there have been only 350 infections and almost everyone has recovered (20 deaths). They're still in partial lockdown but once all have recovered, Shanghai can resume some function - 2 months since the Wuhan outbreak. 2 months. They were never overwhelmed. People didn't die in an uncontrollable fashion. They controlled the virus not the other way round.

As previously stated, I advocated a worldwide lockdown for two weeks (which is something we're seeing in someways now) - we would have been able to identify most, if not all cases, before an outbreak would have arisen.

 

[Rajma]

Whose advice is to self isolate at home with family.

Which you now say is bad. In fact, claimed that it was wishing death on people.

So which is right?

Self isolation is bad if you don’t lockdown everything else (UK model). However, self isolation works if you close everything meaning family members will also mostly stay at home and won’t spread the virus, as a result it then can be dealt more locally and in little clusters.

What UK is doing is simply a massacre and bonkers.

 

[Paxi]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Read the government policy that I posted earlier.

It's a phased response.

You are both arguing the government is right, AND that self isolation is willingly killing family members are bad.

While government strategy is to self isolate at home, and not even tell your doctor you are ill. 'We don't need to know' being the precise phrase.

As I keep asking you, which is the one you actually believe?

 

[Dante]

The whole idea was to control infections as quick as possible. Limit the infection, know your cases and most importantly, implement social distancing.

I've spoken to my Chinese colleague and he states, that in Shanghai, there have been only 350 infections and almost everyone has recovered (20 deaths). They're still in partial lockdown but once all have recovered, Shanghai can resume some function - 2 months since the Wuhan outbreak. 2 months. They were never overwhelmed. People didn't die in an uncontrollable fashion. They controlled the virus not the other way round.

As previously stated, I advocated a worldwide lockdown for two weeks (which is something we're seeing in someways now) - we would have been able to identify most, if not all cases, before an outbreak would have arisen.

That would have been ridiculously impractical, and only kicked the can down the road.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TheReligion]

Genuine question is how much of the workforce would be impacted? I can’t imagine a particularly high number of families exist where the both/single parents work in part of the “essential workforce” who wouldn’t have other safe options for where to leave the kids.

I think you'd be wrong. There's alot of people in the emergency services who are in relationships together, already work flexible patterns to accommodate family life and ultimately rely on childcare which will be non existent if strict measures come into play

You can't just lock everything down early and for a long time. It's irresponsible given the wider impact.

 

[Rajma]

The whole idea was to control infections as quick as possible. Limit the infection, know your cases and most importantly, implement social distancing.

I've spoken to my Chinese colleague and he states, that in Shanghai, there have been only 350 infections and almost everyone has recovered (20 deaths). They're still in partial lockdown but once all have recovered, Shanghai can resume some function - 2 months since the Wuhan outbreak. 2 months. They were never overwhelmed. People didn't die in an uncontrollable fashion. They controlled the virus not the other way round.

As previously stated, I advocated a worldwide lockdown for two weeks (which is something we're seeing in someways now) - we would have been able to identify most, if not all cases, before an outbreak would have arisen.

Exactly.

 

[nickm]

Self isolation is bad if you don’t lockdown everything else (UK model). However, self isolation works if you close everything meaning family members will also mostly stay at home and won’t spread the virus, as a result it then can be dealt more locally and in little clusters.

What UK is doing is simply a massacre and bonkers.

Again.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Paxi]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[JPRouve]

The whole idea was to control infections as quick as possible. Limit the infection, know your cases and most importantly, implement social distancing.

I've spoken to my Chinese colleague and he states, that in Shanghai, there have been only 350 infections and almost everyone has recovered (20 deaths). They're still in partial lockdown but once all have recovered, Shanghai can resume some function - 2 months since the Wuhan outbreak. 2 months. They were never overwhelmed. People didn't die in an uncontrollable fashion. They controlled the virus not the other way round.

As previously stated, I advocated a worldwide lockdown for two weeks (which is something we're seeing in someways now) - we would have been able to identify most, if not all cases, before an outbreak would have arisen.

That part isn't exactly true, since many are supposed to be asymptomatic, unless we check everyone we don't actually know the amount of cases and we don't know who is actually spreading it or spread it. We only know about people that have/had symptoms intense enough to require a visit to the doctor.

 

[Dante]

You are both arguing the government is right, AND that self isolation is willingly killing family members are bad.

While government strategy is to self isolate at home, and not even tell your doctor you are ill. 'We don't need to know' being the precise phrase.

As I keep asking you, which is the one you actually believe?

Which aspect of the plan in the link are is getting you confused?

And you're arguing that people should sick people should either sleep outside or descend on hospitals en masse. Which do you actually believe?

 

[nickm]

The whole idea was to control infections as quick as possible. Limit the infection, know your cases and most importantly, implement social distancing.

I've spoken to my Chinese colleague and he states, that in Shanghai, there have been only 350 infections and almost everyone has recovered (20 deaths). They're still in partial lockdown but once all have recovered, Shanghai can resume some function - 2 months since the Wuhan outbreak. 2 months. They were never overwhelmed. People didn't die in an uncontrollable fashion. They controlled the virus not the other way round.

As previously stated, I advocated a worldwide lockdown for two weeks (which is something we're seeing in someways now) - we would have been able to identify most, if not all cases, before an outbreak would have arisen.

And again while we know this has worked to control the initial outbreaks we don't know if this will stop later outbreaks. It's just too soon to say.

 

[Fooza]

Again.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Did that last decade of preparation result in them giving a press conference that they're not going to ban mass gathering only for reports a day later that they will ban gatherings.

I know people here are saying it isn't a U-turn and that they mentioned it was going to be banned at the right time. But I didn't expect that short of time. Looks to me that they just clueless and it's just theories and assumptions.

 

[SirAF]

.
The World Health Organisation has laid into the Government's coronavirus plans for a second time, slamming the approach to allow UK citizens to develop 'herd immunity' against the potentially deadly infection.

Yesterday, the body's director general had said every country should find and test every possible case and warned not to 'just let this fire burn'.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

And you're arguing that people should sick people should either sleep outside or descend on hospitals en masse. Which do you actually believe?

But I'm not, you just made that up.

Given the ad hominem bullshit and deliberate provocation, one can only conclude you are just here trolling people.

 

[JPRouve]

And you're arguing that people should sick people should either sleep outside or descend on hospitals en masse. Which do you actually believe?

I'm pretty sure that the idea that everyone is trying to convey is that it would be a good idea to limit social interactions right now, in order to limit the amount of people infected, instead of waiting that a lot of people are infected. But it's already too late.

 

[Dante]

But I'm not, you just made that up.

Given the ad hominem bullshit and deliberate provacation, one can only col,cude you are just here trolling people.

What have I said that was ad hominem?

Set the record straight. What should sick people do?

 

[nickm]

Did that last decade of preparation result in them giving a press conference that they're not going to ban mass gathering only for reports a day later that they will ban gatherings.

I know people here are saying it isn't a U-turn and that they mentioned it was going to be banned at the right time. But I didn't expect that short of time. Looks to me that they just clueless and it's just theories and assumptions.

Maybe. Or given that lots of mass gatherings are cancelling anyway, maybe it makes sense to move that bit of the plan up. Why second guess this?

 

[Dante]

I'm pretty sure that the idea that everyone is trying to convey is that it would be a good idea to limit social interactions right now, in order to limit the amount of people infected, instead of waiting that a lot of people are infected. But it's already too late.

And those social interactions are greater if left unfettered in the home than at work.

75 to 80% of the spread in China occured within the home.

The best thing would be to isolate in hospital, then self isolate at home, then go about you daily business with adequete social distancing. The worst situation is for people to stick around at home in close quarters with family members (who may or may not be asymptomatic).

 

[Di Maria's angel]

That would have been ridiculously impractical, and only kicked the can down the road.

How on earth can you say that? Have you ever been in charge of controlling a pandemic before?

 

[Rhyme Animal]

75 to 80% of infections in China were spread in the home.

You might be okay, but you'd be condemning 10s of thousands to die. People like you need to consider your recommendations more seriously. You don't care about innocent lives being lost.

Nobody could read the posts in here by @Di Maria's angel and come to the conclusion that he / she doesn't care about innocent people dying.

The only people who've come across that way are those parroting the same dross that this Tory scum party is. And they are now coming across like brainwashed capitalist protégés of Patrick Bateman.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

No idea but as I say, it wouldn't have to be a particularly high amount to be a concern.

Plus even if they do have other people to take care of them, you then have to ask who those people are. If it is some sort of daycare scenario with multiple kids then the effectiveness of closing schools is reduced, if it's older (more vulnerable) family members than the risk of them becoming infected by the kids is increased.

But very specifically in regards to the UK, I suspect the main argument against closing schools is one they're reluctant to openly make, which is that their plan actively depends on a lot of kids becoming sick. The plan is to deliberately allow a large section of the population to become ill to generate this "herd immunity" they keep referencing and kids are the ideal part of that herd given they're likely to catch/spread the virus but unlikely to become seriously ill.

Problem here is that there's no proof of herd immunity, and often within strains of Corona it doesn't occur due to mutations.

So why make that the whole crux of your radical and unpopular plan? Why make such a huge, reckless gamble with people's lives based on something that has utterly no proof to it?

The Occum's Razor reality is that they're a long proven greedy, self-serving party that are, again, just trying to get away with doing as little as possible and don't care about the consequences for 'normal people'.

It's glorified Eugenics, nothing else.

 

[Paxi]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Nogbadthebad]

What have I said that was ad hominem?

Set the record straight. What should sick people do?

The piece i quoted. It is fallacious, untrue, a lie, a fabrication, ad hominem, utter crap, bullshit, however you wish to describe it.

You have claimed 2 things.

1) Government plan is right and the only way for the UK.

2) Self isolating at home is wishing death on family members.

Given 1) Includes self slating at home, I want to know why you consider it a good idea.

This is not complicated, although your nonsense is tiring.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

That part isn't exactly true, since many are supposed to be asymptomatic, unless we check everyone we don't actually know the amount of cases and we don't know who is actually spreading it or spread it. We only know about people that have/had symptoms intense enough to require a visit to the doctor.

I still don't know if this is true as there are so many conflicting reports.

 

[Amar__]

Be that as it may, we shouldn't be rearranging fatality numbers by removing those of certain age to make ourselves feel better. It's dehumanising.

I don't know, there are thousands people dying in Syria and elsewhere monthly in past few years from things that can be easily stopped and yet no one cares too much to put it on world scale, percentage, but instead they mostly put them in "Syrians" bracket, and everyone is happy it is happening in Syria, and not in Europe, USA or somehere else. So I am not sure anyone here or elsewhere is good enough to say that being happier with these facts is dehumanising.

I mean just few months ago we saw what kind of dehumanising things China did to those people in one of their province, and yet no one cared because it didn't affect us. Few months later China produces one of the worst viruses in history that can affect Europe, all of a sudden we care about 80+ year olds same as we do about others. We all are just lying here, we only care about ourselves.