Off Topic Coronavirus

He thinks the pandemic ended in June (according to Woody’s summary)
He says the virus is no more dangerous than seasonal flu (your summary)

Both of these comments are demonstrably false. We are in a second wave surge across the world but especially in Europe, as shown by rising hospital admissions and deaths. Do you think the pandemic is over?

The virus is no more dangerous than seasonal flu - biggest two flu epidemics post war 57/58 33k; 68/69 80k dead. For neither of these did we bother with social distancing, masks etc, nor did we have vaccines. COVID 19 will, sadly peak at well over 100k deaths, despite the major efforts and sacrifices made to control it. It’s obviously worse than seasonal flu in most years and even peak years.

I may have misunderstood your reflection of his comments on T cells. I assumed it meant that as people who have had the disease have T cells and won’t get badly ill again, we can relax restrictions and bad luck those who haven’t got T cells and are vulnerable to death or long covid. Eugenicist is a strong word, but if this interpretation is correct, I can’t think of another accurate one - sacrifice of some members of the population on biological grounds. If I got it wrong, apologies.

Anyway, let’s move on. I can’t see how his views will change anything.

 

Had Twitter and Facebook been around in 57 and 68 maybe the world would have shut up shop then as well
We haven't had a first wave yet
We also have had hardly any flu deaths this year
Should we keep the border shut and keep away from each other to eliminate flu completely

 

Probably should have a had a lockdown a few weeks ago... in hindsight.

True leadership to sneak the news out on a Friday night to gauge opinions over the weekend.

 

If it starts Wednesday the Derby match will be off, it seems there has been no provision made by the EFL as to what happens if there is another shutdown. The late start to the season has already left little 'wiggle room' in the fixture list...

 

I certainly agree that it would have made sense to start any lockdown at the beginning of half term.

Picky! Pretty much standard strategy to filter news out and temper the impact of bad news - not just in governments.

 

But will they shut the borders? they didn’t before & all hell broke loose with virus

 

New modelling (no, I don’t really trust it either) has deaths peaking at 2000 a day (though some versions say 4000) twice the rate of the first wave.

Now that the rates of infection growth are highest in the east and south east suddenly its a national rather than a regional problem. I wonder why. Every cabinet minister I have heard speak since they rejected SAGE advice for a lockdown has stressed that the regional approach was definitely better that a national one. When a national one would have inconvenienced their constituents.

If we have another lockdown hopefully this will mitigate a little - stay in for a month, go nuts over Christmas, stay in for another month or two.....shame that, once again, if we think this is the right thing to do, we didn’t do it earlier, when it would have had a bigger impact. Keep an eye on a Spain and France especially to see if this approach works.


What a nightmare this is. Vaccine please, even one that is only partially effective.

 

Stan - this is less of a Pandemic now and more of a Eurodemic. Nearly all South American countries are seeing reduced numbers of new infections and the same is true for most of Asia and Africa. It's now becoming more and more of a European and North American problem - the question is why ? For comparison - in Germany you can get tested if you a) have symptoms or b) have just returned from an 'infected' area or c) have recently been in contact with someone who has tested positive. In South Korea anyone who wants can get tested free of charge. We have not yet solved the most basic problem of the time span between initial infection and positive testing which can be up to 7-8 days, by which time the damage has been done. Some Asian countries have brought in blanket testing to solve this problem. A lockdown can only be usefull if it is used constructively ie. in conjunction with some sort of mass testing programme.

 

How long before my local Tesco is stripped of all basics like loo roll and pasta....

 

About an hour ago

 

Anyone who hasn't already panic stockpiled a years bog roll and pasta deserves everything they get

 

? While a wonderful all singing all dancing testing programme would be lovely it’s not a pre condition for a ‘constructive’ lockdown. By keeping people away from each other we will reduce the spread of the disease, buying a bit of time before the hospitals start refusing to take people. That’s what it’s for.

 

Just like business, football et al ... everyone is looking at someone who seems to be doing the right thing; trying to work out what they are doing right, then how they can do the same. Trouble is every area is different socially, culturally, economically and politically. So one size doesn’t fit all. Meanwhile we all tear ourselves, and others, apart because it’s not working. Welcome to the modern world where we all know too much for our own good sometimes. If we’re not solving diseases, we are creating/culturing new ones.

 

Tight lockdowns have been successfull without mass testing. I was in Thailand where that happened, and I think it was much the same in some other countries there.

I think the reasons for the huge amount of Covid19 in much of Europe and N America include the failure to lockdown properly until too late, open up too quickly, and then not lockdown properly again. This coupled with the the climate, lack of appreciation that the virus travels further in the air in cool, drier air, failure to understand the wearing of masks and keeping good distance especially inside, helps a carrier not spread the virus and helps you avoid it. This was shown in many tests early on and you only need to look at SE.Asia to see the wearing of masks and minimised contact with others by lockdown works.

 

You have covered a lot of different influencers there Oslo. But it is difficult in those instances to determine the high-level impacting influencers e.g. masks; high influencer or low influencer? I’m personally feel sure there are many other high influencers that have contributed to their success (fear of authoritarian rule-breaking?). There’s no time to work out which ones work best, so we throw the best-advised ones in the pot and they work or don’t - but overall we get an outcome. But we don’t really know why. Result: confusion on which to pick.
You pays your money and takes your choices. Then await the outcome (not much better off).

 

4 pm announcement. Buckle up, thrill seekers!

 

Right...a very good friends mother who was in hospital in Barnsley, has been diagnosed with Covid last week. They have now been told, that there is no hope.
I do not think they can even be with her. It is destroying them

The next time someone suggests that this a hoax, or exaggerated or is a media invention...will really really get the full blast of my sadness and anger.

 

I think it is obvious that Governments should look at Countries who have successfully managed to rid and then keep the virus at very low levels, follow what they have done, and use every "influencer" they can. Obviously they can't do anything with the Climate, but they can use every other method which has been successfully used to help stop the virus spreading, and clear it in some Countries, New Zealand, Vietnam, China, Thailand, maybe others. The numbers are so high now, record breaking in the US and W.Europe, it is criminal not to take the measures which are obviously needed.

 

What do you think of Mike Yeadon’s interview?