Was Sweden right after all ?

[simon field]

Fill yer boots:

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-care-homes-discharge/

 

[John Hemming]

Or you could learn why.
They agreed to quarantine. And then stopped off at a shop to buy alcohol. Breaking quarantine.
If they did not agree with it then why agree with doing it?

IOM appear to have control of their borders and action against those breaching agreed rules far better than UK does.

If, however, they had not worn masks then no-one would have known they were from England.

 

[Mr D]

If, however, they had not worn masks then no-one would have known they were from England.

You not think them saying they were just off the boat may have triggered suspicion in someone's mind?

 

[John Hemming]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-54360825

"When another customer asked one of the men why they were wearing masks, suspicions were aroused when he replied they had "just got off the boat", the court heard."

 

[Mr D]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-54360825

"When another customer asked one of the men why they were wearing masks, suspicions were aroused when he replied they had "just got off the boat", the court heard."

Glad you agree.

 

[John Hemming]

Glad you agree.

Its a good example of a rubbish report by the BBC. They would not have been asked if they were not wearing masks. The wearing of the masks raised suspicions, but the reply of "just got off the boat" confirmed them.

 

[Mr D]

Its a good example of a rubbish report by the BBC. They would not have been asked if they were not wearing masks. The wearing of the masks raised suspicions, but the reply of "just got off the boat" confirmed them.

https://covid19.gov.im/general-information/guidance-on-face-masks/

Funny really, based on government guidance would expect some people to wear face masks who live there.

You are imagining that the wearing of the face masks raised suspicions. You could be right but you cannot know. You could be wrong.
Whereas the reply of just got off the boat would be suspicious to anyone who knows the quarantine rules.

 

[John Hemming]

Whereas the reply of ....

Why ask the question?

 

[Mr D]

Why ask the question?

Conversation.

Why do you think people may be wearing masks during a pandemic?

 

[simon field]

Conversation.

Why do you think people may be wearing masks during a pandemic?

You have a short memory.

Don’t you remember when they went from:

“Masks? Nah. Don’t do much good, in fact they could well make things worse. Don’t bother!”

To:

“Masks are great, they really do the job - wear one if you’re buying some cakes”.

Have you not noticed what’s happened since we’ve all been wearing masks?

Hmmm?

 

[ville1401]

Yeah that’s true. It could’ve been ham I suppose!

All for a virus which the experts can’t even count properly - they were only 16,000 out!

experts weren't counting. Track and trace is run by private organisations, who cleverly used excel for their expensive database. And used one column per case, rather than one row, so the spreadsheet maxed out at 16000 odd. Pure genius.

 

[simon field]

experts weren't counting. Track and trace is run by private organisations, who cleverly used excel for their expensive database. And used one column per case, rather than one row, so the spreadsheet maxed out at 16000 odd. Pure genius.

That’s true, but the buck always stops at the top!

 

[Mr D]

You have a short memory.

Don’t you remember when they went from:

“Masks? Nah. Don’t do much good, in fact they could well make things worse. Don’t bother!”

To:

“Masks are great, they really do the job - wear one if you’re buying some cakes”.

Have you not noticed what’s happened since we’ve all been wearing masks?

Hmmm?

Even back soon after when government told 60 odd million people to stock up on food and other supplies there were a lot of people wearing masks while around others at the supermarket. And that was prior to lockdown.

People don't always do what governments want them to do - you should have noticed that.

Lots of things have happened since some people were wearing masks. All been wearing them? No, we've not had that time yet. We don't require everyone to wear a mask.

I have noticed that less illnesses seem to be passed on since mask wearing took off. I've been ill a lot less and appear to have missed the flu this year. Which makes a nice change.

 

[Mr D]

experts weren't counting. Track and trace is run by private organisations, who cleverly used excel for their expensive database. And used one column per case, rather than one row, so the spreadsheet maxed out at 16000 odd. Pure genius.

So it both maxed out at 16,000 and they were 16,000 odd out?
What are the odds?

 

[simon field]

I have noticed that less illnesses seem to be passed on since mask wearing took off..

Apart from the illness of the moment of course.

 

[Mr D]

Apart from the illness of the moment of course.

Do not appear to have caught that yet. Though as my wife pointed out I would have no way of knowing if I did get it, without a blood test.

This is the first year I have not had flu in past 3 years. Have had less colds, less other viruses. And less close contact / close confinement with other people.
Be interesting to see the total flu figures for the year once released next year. See what impact both the covid virus and the multiple methods used to reduce spread have had on that.

 

[simon field]

Do not appear to have caught that yet.

Chances are you wouldn’t know.

Not noticed what’s going on in the world around you?

 

[SillyBill]

Do not appear to have caught that yet. Though as my wife pointed out I would have no way of knowing if I did get it, without a blood test.

This is the first year I have not had flu in past 3 years. Have had less colds, less other viruses. And less close contact / close confinement with other people.
Be interesting to see the total flu figures for the year once released next year. See what impact both the covid virus and the multiple methods used to reduce spread have had on that.

Where do you find the time from to be ill every year? I last went to the doctors 11 years ago and I'm still catching up from that visit now.

I think what I and like-minded people would describe as feeling a little off-peak or under the weather others describe as being "ill". Usually employed folk. Any bloke talking of illnesses without there being a leg visibly blown off or other such impairment ought to get the "man up" advice. Cue PC protestations. We've gone soft.

 

[Mr D]

Where do you find the time from to be ill every year? I last went to the doctors 11 years ago and I'm still catching up from that visit now.

I think what I and like-minded people would describe as feeling a little off-peak or under the weather others describe as being "ill". Usually employed folk. Any bloke talking of illnesses without there being a leg visibly blown off or other such impairment ought to get the "man up" advice. Cue PC protestations. We've gone soft.

I've had a week off work in the past 7 years, that was in one go and was only because I was stuck in hospital. Have worked while I have the flu but very very slow. Luckily enough was in quiet times.
Been ill a number of times from viruses, infections (my leg needs to be drained sometimes) and taking meds.

With 4 disabilities I tend to have multiple things affecting health at any one time too. So yes I can be ill.
Off peak / under the weather? I don't get those. That would be a step up from every day.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Where do you find the time from to be ill every year? I last went to the doctors 11 years ago and I'm still catching up from that visit now.

I think what I and like-minded people would describe as feeling a little off-peak or under the weather others describe as being "ill". Usually employed folk. Any bloke talking of illnesses without there being a leg visibly blown off or other such impairment ought to get the "man up" advice. Cue PC protestations. We've gone soft.

No unfortunately it's you and Simon who have gone soft just above your neck

 

[Justin Smith]

Ahh, more support for sanity, at last.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement :
Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.
Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives.

I have said this from the beginning, before, in fact, this virus even struck us here in the UK. I could not believe it when I saw the Italians shutting down large sections of their country, I thought it was crazy, and nothing I have seen in the interim has caused me to change my mind.
It's the biggest over reaction in the history of the world with the "treatment" being worse than the disease.

 

[Justin Smith]

Ahh, more support for sanity, at last.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement :
Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.
Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives.

All I would emphasise is that it should all be advisory, even if it does mean more may die. In a free country we should not be telling anyone to stay at home, just advising them and helping them do that if they choose to do so.

I have said this from the beginning, before, in fact, this virus even struck us here in the UK. I could not believe it when I saw the Italians shutting down large sections of their country, I thought it was crazy, and nothing I have seen in the interim has caused me to change my mind.
It's the biggest over reaction in the history of the world with the "treatment" being worse than the disease.

 

[simon field]

with the "treatment" being worse than the disease.

Careful, the Covidiots won’t accept that!

 

[Mr D]

Ahh, more support for sanity, at last.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement :
Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.
Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives.

I have said this from the beginning, before, in fact, this virus even struck us here in the UK. I could not believe it when I saw the Italians shutting down large sections of their country, I thought it was crazy, and nothing I have seen in the interim has caused me to change my mind.
It's the biggest over reaction in the history of the world with the "treatment" being worse than the disease.

So 2 groups of experts with completely opposite solutions.

Should governments listen to either group? Or wait until there is a global consensus as there is for say physics or archeology or oil drilling.

 

[Justin Smith]

Although I still don't think the death rate will go as high as it did last time, I am strating to get a bit worried but it could go higher than I thought it would.
Why ?
I am shocked that the government have not started advising (and that should be advising, not ordering) vulnerable people to modify their behaviour. It is extremely irresponsible. They have to start educating people as to just how vulnerable (or not) they really are and advising them on that basis. They are so fixated with treating everyone the same that they could end up killing far more people than they otherwise would (or damaging the economy far more than they otherwise would).

The government are ignoring what is right in front of their face :

Kids aren't on the graphic because their chances of death is so low it isn't statistically reliable.....

 

[Mr D]

So quarantine everyone aged 30 or more. That deals with all those at risk yes?

Now, how many of those up to and including age 29 will be able to work in hospital as doctors?

 

[simon field]

So quarantine everyone aged 30 or more. That deals with all those at risk yes?

Now, how many of those up to and including age 29 will be able to work in hospital as doctors?

What a ridiculous thing to say. Completely ignores the probability and balance of risk.

 

[Mr D]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Completely ignores the probability and balance of risk.

On the contrary it deals with the fact that risk is so much higher for the older people.
We are not talking 2 or 3 percent higher risk, double the risk upwards!

You are disagreeing with the chart such a helpful poster put up? Perhaps your data regarding risk is better if so then provide it.

 

[SillyBill]

No unfortunately it's you and Simon who have gone soft just above your neck

Blistering critique - I'll do well to avoid such witty retributions in future...

 

[simon field]

On the contrary it deals with the fact that risk is so much higher for the older people.
We are not talking 2 or 3 percent higher risk, double the risk upwards!

You are disagreeing with the chart such a helpful poster put up? Perhaps your data regarding risk is better if so then provide it.

Deliberately obtuse. You suggested everyone over 30 stays in. The risk is so fractionally tiny for the vast majority of people.

Older people or the vulnerable can shield/avoid if they wish. Or not. Up to them.

 

[Mr D]

Deliberately obtuse. You suggested everyone over 30 stays in. The risk is so fractionally tiny for the vast majority of people.

Older people or the vulnerable can shield/avoid if they wish. Or not. Up to them.

Of course I suggested anyone over 30 stay in. Based on that chart.
The chart says they have 2 X higher risk of hospitalisation and 4 X higher risk of death.
Why would you want them taking those chances?

Or are you suggesting the chart overemphasized the risks to people?

Oh and neither you nor I are making decisions for the country. Tell your mp if you disagree with what government policy is. Or refuse to change things.

 

[gpietersz]

Should governments listen to either group? Or wait until there is a global consensus as there is for say physics or archeology or oil drilling.

There is a consensus for some things in physics.

Many things that were the consensus in physics turned out to be wrong (e.g. aether theory of electromagnetic waves). A consensus may mean that its widely accepted that a theory is probably correct, rather than proven correct.

In the case of covid you have two (broad) policy choices:

If you take choice A, you take the risk that far more people will die from covids than if the theory favouring choice B turns out to be right

If you take choice B far more people will die form covid than if you take the risk that far more people will die from covid if the theory favouring choice A turns out to be right.

You also know that choice B will lead to an increase in deaths from other causes compared to choice A, and will do a lot of economic damage, and lower everyone's quality of life.

 

[Interestedobserver]

I have to take issue above

Surpressing Covid will do a lot of economic damage and lower everybody's quality of life (for sure)

Not surpressing Covid will do at least as much economic damage and lower everybody's quality of life (for sure)

Anyone who suggests different is totally delusional

If Covid is allowed to go unchecked and our hospitals cannot cope then the majority of the UK population will stay in and try and keep safe

Meanwhile there will be NO resource to deal with the other illnesses that need treating

We've already seen that when Covid was at its peak people stopped going out for check ups as they were scared of catching Covid!


You guys really fail to realise that when given the choice people will still protect themselves and their families

They won't go out to work in offices, they won't use public transport, they won't go to pubs and restaurants full stop

You can't make people act normal when there's a pandemic thats being left to run riot

Surely you must understand that?

There will be even less people going out than we have now

 

[Newchodge]

I have to take issue above

Surpressing Covid will do a lot of economic damage and lower everybody's quality of life (for sure)

Not surpressing Covid will do at least as much economic damage and lower everybody's quality of life (for sure)

Anyone who suggests different is totally delusional

If Covid is allowed to go unchecked and our hospitals cannot cope then the majority of the UK population will stay in and try and keep safe

Meanwhile there will be NO resource to deal with the other illnesses that need treating

We've already seen that when Covid was at its peak people stopped going out for check ups as they were scared of catching Covid!


You guys really fail to realise that when given the choice people will still protect themselves and their families

They won't go out to work in offices, they won't use public transport, they won't go to pubs and restaurants full stop

You can't make people act normal when there's a pandemic thats being left to run riot

Surely you must understand that?

There will be even less people going out than we have now

I think you will find that most of us have already said that. and it means that COMPULSORY lockdown is pointless.

 

[Mr D]

I think you will find that most of us have already said that. and it means that COMPULSORY lockdown is pointless.

Voluntary lockdown hasn't made enough difference. People still die, people still end up in hospital.
People are still ill.

So what viable options are left?

 

[Mr D]

There is a consensus for some things in physics.

Many things that were the consensus in physics turned out to be wrong (e.g. aether theory of electromagnetic waves). A consensus may mean that its widely accepted that a theory is probably correct, rather than proven correct.

In the case of covid you have two (broad) policy choices:

If you take choice A, you take the risk that far more people will die from covids than if the theory favouring choice B turns out to be right

If you take choice B far more people will die form covid than if you take the risk that far more people will die from covid if the theory favouring choice A turns out to be right.

You also know that choice B will lead to an increase in deaths from other causes compared to choice A, and will do a lot of economic damage, and lower everyone's quality of life.

Then notify the governments of the world to use your preferred method.

Just like other people already are.

 

[The Byre]

Almost all of those who die or fall gravely ill from the coronavirus are old, and yet the burden of anti-virus policies is falling mostly on the young, for whom social distancing and lockdowns are especially damaging. Children suffered enormously until the schools were reopened, but for now the biggest losers are teenagers and young adults.

Prospects are disastrous for students and almost everybody in their twenties. Their lives are being blighted and yet, to add insult to injury, they are also being blamed for spreading the virus. The 10 pm curfew and most other restrictions are clearly aimed at the young and it is time they started publicly defying the law.

Instead of denouncing young people, the Government ought to be thanking them for helping to fight the virus, even though they are the ones at least danger from C19.

The scenes from some universities have been disgusting - young people illegally locked up in their halls, banned from socialising. Most universities are just dishonest rackets, churning out an inadequate education in return for fees and rents for halls of residence, relishing the fact that this year’s intake are powerless prisoners.

 

[Mr D]

Almost all of those who die or fall gravely ill from the coronavirus are old, and yet the burden of anti-virus policies is falling mostly on the young, for whom social distancing and lockdowns are especially damaging. Children suffered enormously until the schools were reopened, but for now the biggest losers are teenagers and young adults.

Prospects are disastrous for students and almost everybody in their twenties. Their lives are being blighted and yet, to add insult to injury, they are also being blamed for spreading the virus. The 10 pm curfew and most other restrictions are clearly aimed at the young and it is time they started publicly defying the law.

Instead of denouncing young people, the Government ought to be thanking them for helping to fight the virus, even though they are the ones at least danger from C19.

The scenes from some universities have been disgusting - young people illegally locked up in their halls, banned from socialising. Most universities are just dishonest rackets, churning out an inadequate education in return for fees and rents for halls of residence, relishing the fact that this year’s intake are powerless prisoners.

Then those young people illegally locked up in their halls will easily win a court case against those who locked them up.

What other methods of enforced quarantine work?

 

[gpietersz]

@Interestedobserver there is not way not suppressing will have anything like the same impact.

Some people might be too scared to go to work or go out. With a lockdown everyone if forced to.

The last restaurant I went to was full. Most pubs are full

So what viable options are left?

Herd immunity, lockdown only if NHS looks likey to be unable to cope.

People still die, people still end up in hospital.

There is no option that we can be sure is the one that will save lives.

Lockdown has killed more people than covid would have without it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...uld-have-saved-lives-lockdown-study-suggests/

 

[Mr D]

@Interestedobserver there is not way not suppressing will have anything like the same impact.

Some people might be too scared to go to work or go out. With a lockdown everyone if forced to.

The last restaurant I went to was full. Most pubs are full



Herd immunity, lockdown only if NHS looks likey to be unable to cope.



There is no option that we can be sure is the one that will save lives.

Lockdown has killed more people than covid would have without it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...uld-have-saved-lives-lockdown-study-suggests/

Herd immunity also kills people.
To get there you need the population to catch the virus. Hospitals busy with sick people with Covid won't have time to deal with other less immediate concerns. And the ambulance service gets to arrive too late far more often if they are tied up in travelling.


No easy answers to the covid problem. We kill people or we kill people or we kill people. At best the politicians (and all sides are included here) doing a delicate balancing act.
But they don't spread the virus - people do (OK some exceptions Margaret Ferrier)

Depending on what damage long covid does to any particular individual, they can also become an outpatient for long term effects, reduce socialising, and be more vulnerable to dying from other illnesses.
Damage to organs can be difficult to deal with. Damage to organs and NHS snowed under because of people who are more ill than the person with the organ damage....
Disaster waiting to happen. Least with diagnosis, treatment that can be given and adjusted as necessary, blood thinners etc.... the person has a chance of a new normal for their life.