The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
;Jeremy.89 said:
I don't think the straight up herd immunity policy really stands up to any scrutiny. However, I think the timings of our lockdown have worked reasonably, although we'll have to wait for a while to really know one way or the other.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree it looked terrible at the time. To misquote TBB if only they knew more than him they would have done so much better and all he had was a small box that allowed him to see two weeks into the future.rick_chasey said:In hindsight, how on earth was the gov't going to do 'herd immunity' without any testing?
The response until about March 15th in hindsight looks absolutely terrible.
I would set September up as a month to work towards for lots of things, school university grad schemes and sport.
That doesn't mean I don't think things should go on in the meantime, finishing off the Premier league behind closed doors would seem sensible, so long as the lockdown is giving results, and so long as there are plenty of anti body tests flying about.
Having said all that, I'm not keen when politicians/Toby Youngs talk about setting precise dates on these things.
I think it's important to put an end date on things, though. The French PM has basically said that we'll be in lockdown for as long as it takes and that's no way to obtain the consent of the population. It's important to remember that if people feel the lockdown is too strict or pointless then they won't respect it. They should really explain what the reasons for certain measures are and, most importantly, what the actual scientific evidence behind them is (at least more than 'just in case')0 -
-
He’s been caught bang to rights.tailwindhome said:"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"0 -
I knew nothing about it at the time. 0%.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree it looked terrible at the time. To misquote TBB if only they knew more than him they would have done so much better and all he had was a small box that allowed him to see two weeks into the future.rick_chasey said:In hindsight, how on earth was the gov't going to do 'herd immunity' without any testing?
The response until about March 15th in hindsight looks absolutely terrible.
I’m now around mount stupid.0 -
Not sure what grad schemes are but you are definitely over-estimating the importance of sport.Jeremy.89 said:
I don't think the straight up herd immunity policy really stands up to any scrutiny. However, I think the timings of our lockdown have worked reasonably, although we'll have to wait for a while to really know one way or the other.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree it looked terrible at the time. To misquote TBB if only they knew more than him they would have done so much better and all he had was a small box that allowed him to see two weeks into the future.rick_chasey said:In hindsight, how on earth was the gov't going to do 'herd immunity' without any testing?
The response until about March 15th in hindsight looks absolutely terrible.
I would set September up as a month to work towards for lots of things, school university grad schemes and sport.
That doesn't mean I don't think things should go on in the meantime, finishing off the Premier league behind closed doors would seem sensible, so long as the lockdown is giving results, and so long as there are plenty of anti body tests flying about.
Having said all that, I'm not keen when politicians/Toby Youngs talk about setting precise dates on these things.
At the moment we are probably hovering over whether we need a stricter lockdown before we start unwinding it which will be reversal of the previous process0 -
You are so last century, what difference do you think it will make, he is hardly going to quit for lying.rick_chasey said:
He’s been caught bang to rights.tailwindhome said:"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"0 -
Just as a little aside, anyone think there may be an impact on people's materialism at the end of this? Adequate provisions of blogroll aside... 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
tailwindhome said:
"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"
Something doesn't smell right about this from the government side.0 -
You voted for them to own the libscoopster_the_1st said:tailwindhome said:"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"
Something doesn't smell right about this from the government side.
and the word you're looking for is 'lie'
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It might be different when there’s a body count at the end of it. Who knows.surrey_commuter said:
You are so last century, what difference do you think it will make, he is hardly going to quit for lying.rick_chasey said:
He’s been caught bang to rights.tailwindhome said:"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"0 -
He does not look the type to resign as a matter of honour and his boss is hardly likely to want to set a precedent.rick_chasey said:
It might be different when there’s a body count at the end of it. Who knows.surrey_commuter said:
You are so last century, what difference do you think it will make, he is hardly going to quit for lying.rick_chasey said:
He’s been caught bang to rights.tailwindhome said:"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"
The real question of course is why tell that lie? Suggestion is that no attempt was made to source tests as they were not needed under the Govt’s now discredited herd immunity policy.0 -
Lie could be correct but I use smell because I trust Prof Chris Whitty (CMO), Dr Jenny Harries (Deputy CMO) & Sir Patrick Vallance (CSO). They are saying the same things on testing so must know the real reason. Also, the CMO's of Scotland, Wales and NI would also know this and I really can't see Nicola Sturgeon covering up for this government.tailwindhome said:
You voted for them to own the libscoopster_the_1st said:tailwindhome said:"We need a reason why we aren't testing"
"Tell them we don't have chemicals"
"Brilliant. No one will ever check"
Something doesn't smell right about this from the government side.
and the word you're looking for is 'lie'
On the other side it is Peston and that says enough as he has an ego to maintain0 -
Which person in your family would you give up for the good of the economy?coopster_the_1st said:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) put an upper band of £30,000 on the cost of adding one quality-adjusted life year (Qaly).Jeremy.89 said:To be fair to the newspapers. There is only one news story on atm and they have a whole paper to fill!
The whole right wing deliberately contrarian opinion article is pretty standard fare and pretty tedious. Expecting them to do a fair cost benefit analysis (I.e one that includes the cost of preventable deaths as a cost of opening up our economy again) is simply expecting too much within a short article.
I do think that there could be more emphasis on just how bad letting covid run riot would be from an economic pov (as well as a human pov) though.
Even Diane Abbott and her maths can see we blown this figure away.
And this does not take account of the life years list of the 99.5% who have to pick up the pieces0 -
Everyone would love an end date, but I think we would just be kidding ourselves. Best we can do is aim for something and review regularly. The modelling is the best guess we have but as has been shown already, you need to review and adjust as the real data arrives.nickice said:
;Jeremy.89 said:
I don't think the straight up herd immunity policy really stands up to any scrutiny. However, I think the timings of our lockdown have worked reasonably, although we'll have to wait for a while to really know one way or the other.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree it looked terrible at the time. To misquote TBB if only they knew more than him they would have done so much better and all he had was a small box that allowed him to see two weeks into the future.rick_chasey said:In hindsight, how on earth was the gov't going to do 'herd immunity' without any testing?
The response until about March 15th in hindsight looks absolutely terrible.
I would set September up as a month to work towards for lots of things, school university grad schemes and sport.
That doesn't mean I don't think things should go on in the meantime, finishing off the Premier league behind closed doors would seem sensible, so long as the lockdown is giving results, and so long as there are plenty of anti body tests flying about.
Having said all that, I'm not keen when politicians/Toby Youngs talk about setting precise dates on these things.
I think it's important to put an end date on things, though. The French PM has basically said that we'll be in lockdown for as long as it takes and that's no way to obtain the consent of the population. It's important to remember that if people feel the lockdown is too strict or pointless then they won't respect it. They should really explain what the reasons for certain measures are and, most importantly, what the actual scientific evidence behind them is (at least more than 'just in case')1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
For about a week I suspect.pblakeney said:Just as a little aside, anyone think there may be an impact on people's materialism at the end of this? Adequate provisions of blogroll aside... 😉
I'd also like to think we'd hear an end of people moaning about charities doing stuff for people in Africa when we're struggling at home as we've shown we can barely cope with an emergency that wouldn't even cause a ripple to the people being helped over there. Likewise, you would think that people who are moaning about being stuck in their house for a few weeks with their families and luxury items, allowed out when essential and to exercise will no longer say that prison is a holiday camp and not a proper punishment. However, I suspect I'll be disappointed.0 -
-
You are asking this question the wrong way round. How much would you give up for your child? Your life?rick_chasey said:
Which person in your family would you give up for the good of the economy?coopster_the_1st said:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) put an upper band of £30,000 on the cost of adding one quality-adjusted life year (Qaly).Jeremy.89 said:To be fair to the newspapers. There is only one news story on atm and they have a whole paper to fill!
The whole right wing deliberately contrarian opinion article is pretty standard fare and pretty tedious. Expecting them to do a fair cost benefit analysis (I.e one that includes the cost of preventable deaths as a cost of opening up our economy again) is simply expecting too much within a short article.
I do think that there could be more emphasis on just how bad letting covid run riot would be from an economic pov (as well as a human pov) though.
Even Diane Abbott and her maths can see we blown this figure away.
And this does not take account of the life years list of the 99.5% who have to pick up the pieces
The answer is Yes and this is what any normal parent would do.
With age comes experience, maturity and the responsibility of wanting to protect our young.0 -
So yourself?coopster_the_1st said:
You are asking this question the wrong way round. How much would you give up for your child? Your life?rick_chasey said:
Which person in your family would you give up for the good of the economy?coopster_the_1st said:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) put an upper band of £30,000 on the cost of adding one quality-adjusted life year (Qaly).Jeremy.89 said:To be fair to the newspapers. There is only one news story on atm and they have a whole paper to fill!
The whole right wing deliberately contrarian opinion article is pretty standard fare and pretty tedious. Expecting them to do a fair cost benefit analysis (I.e one that includes the cost of preventable deaths as a cost of opening up our economy again) is simply expecting too much within a short article.
I do think that there could be more emphasis on just how bad letting covid run riot would be from an economic pov (as well as a human pov) though.
Even Diane Abbott and her maths can see we blown this figure away.
And this does not take account of the life years list of the 99.5% who have to pick up the pieces
The answer is Yes and this is what any normal parent would do.
With age comes experience, maturity and the responsibility of protecting our young.
I’d settle for that.1 -
Graduate schemes. The premier league contributes (a lot) more to GDP than fishing, and football is pretty important socially to a massive number of people. Ultimately I think the health of the nation would be improved by some semblance of normality, even if sport is trivial...surrey_commuter said:
Not sure what grad schemes are but you are definitely over-estimating the importance of sport.Jeremy.89 said:
I don't think the straight up herd immunity policy really stands up to any scrutiny. However, I think the timings of our lockdown have worked reasonably, although we'll have to wait for a while to really know one way or the other.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree it looked terrible at the time. To misquote TBB if only they knew more than him they would have done so much better and all he had was a small box that allowed him to see two weeks into the future.rick_chasey said:In hindsight, how on earth was the gov't going to do 'herd immunity' without any testing?
The response until about March 15th in hindsight looks absolutely terrible.
I would set September up as a month to work towards for lots of things, school university grad schemes and sport.
That doesn't mean I don't think things should go on in the meantime, finishing off the Premier league behind closed doors would seem sensible, so long as the lockdown is giving results, and so long as there are plenty of anti body tests flying about.
Having said all that, I'm not keen when politicians/Toby Youngs talk about setting precise dates on these things.
At the moment we are probably hovering over whether we need a stricter lockdown before we start unwinding it which will be reversal of the previous process
How does a reversal of the previous process go? When are people who are capable of working from home going to feel happy to go back in to the office? Many employers take their duty of care pretty seriously nowadays too.
0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
It was his father earlier in the thread.rick_chasey said:
Which person in your family would you give up for the good of the economy?coopster_the_1st said:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) put an upper band of £30,000 on the cost of adding one quality-adjusted life year (Qaly).Jeremy.89 said:To be fair to the newspapers. There is only one news story on atm and they have a whole paper to fill!
The whole right wing deliberately contrarian opinion article is pretty standard fare and pretty tedious. Expecting them to do a fair cost benefit analysis (I.e one that includes the cost of preventable deaths as a cost of opening up our economy again) is simply expecting too much within a short article.
I do think that there could be more emphasis on just how bad letting covid run riot would be from an economic pov (as well as a human pov) though.
Even Diane Abbott and her maths can see we blown this figure away.
And this does not take account of the life years list of the 99.5% who have to pick up the pieces
I doubt this will change his thinking: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-521144760 -
Coopster consistently ignores this glaring flaw in his plan to let the old folk die.tailwindhome said:
Your plan is to help doctors by sending hundreds of thousands virus infected patients their way.coopster_the_1st said:
I've owned the libs for the last 3.5 yearstailwindhome said:
As well?coopster_the_1st said:
There are 65,750,000 others and their future lives to consider as welltailwindhome said:
You favour letting 250,000 die to own the libs?coopster_the_1st said:I am enjoying that people are waking up and finally questioning if we are looking way to short term with our actions to the current crisis.
That this discussion angers the woke and SJW's shows that it is likely the current policys are the wrong ones.
It's mostly owning the libs though isn't it?
We always use to abide by the 'women and children' first philosophy. ie The young before the old. This is surely a very liberal policy.
We'd all agree that right now you would spend your medical resources on saving a doctor against an 80 year man. We would do it for the greater good as the recovered doctor would then contribute to saving many more lives.
Just to own the libs
Let the virus spread and the NHS collapses, and suddenly its not "just" old people suffering (not that it is anyway), it's NHS staff and all the other people who are now dying of stuff the NHS would have been able to help with.
How do you solve this Coopster? Refuse admission to anyone with symptoms? Ship them all off somewhere? Genuinely curious how you expect this to work.sam0 -
Unfortunately, me too. 😢Pross said:
For about a week I suspect.pblakeney said:Just as a little aside, anyone think there may be an impact on people's materialism at the end of this? Adequate provisions of blogroll aside... 😉
I'd also like to think we'd hear an end of people moaning about charities doing stuff for people in Africa when we're struggling at home as we've shown we can barely cope with an emergency that wouldn't even cause a ripple to the people being helped over there. Likewise, you would think that people who are moaning about being stuck in their house for a few weeks with their families and luxury items, allowed out when essential and to exercise will no longer say that prison is a holiday camp and not a proper punishment. However, I suspect I'll be disappointed.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Too sad for words.kingstongraham said:
It was his father earlier in the thread.rick_chasey said:
Which person in your family would you give up for the good of the economy?coopster_the_1st said:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) put an upper band of £30,000 on the cost of adding one quality-adjusted life year (Qaly).Jeremy.89 said:To be fair to the newspapers. There is only one news story on atm and they have a whole paper to fill!
The whole right wing deliberately contrarian opinion article is pretty standard fare and pretty tedious. Expecting them to do a fair cost benefit analysis (I.e one that includes the cost of preventable deaths as a cost of opening up our economy again) is simply expecting too much within a short article.
I do think that there could be more emphasis on just how bad letting covid run riot would be from an economic pov (as well as a human pov) though.
Even Diane Abbott and her maths can see we blown this figure away.
And this does not take account of the life years list of the 99.5% who have to pick up the pieces
I doubt this will change his thinking: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-52114476The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
He has no answer. He probably does not even know how to address the loss of trust of medical professionals working within the NHS sent like lambs to the slaughter under his plan that would most definitely overwhelm the system..sampangolin said:
Coopster consistently ignores this glaring flaw in his plan to let the old folk die.tailwindhome said:
Your plan is to help doctors by sending hundreds of thousands virus infected patients their way.coopster_the_1st said:
I've owned the libs for the last 3.5 yearstailwindhome said:
As well?coopster_the_1st said:
There are 65,750,000 others and their future lives to consider as welltailwindhome said:
You favour letting 250,000 die to own the libs?coopster_the_1st said:I am enjoying that people are waking up and finally questioning if we are looking way to short term with our actions to the current crisis.
That this discussion angers the woke and SJW's shows that it is likely the current policys are the wrong ones.
It's mostly owning the libs though isn't it?
We always use to abide by the 'women and children' first philosophy. ie The young before the old. This is surely a very liberal policy.
We'd all agree that right now you would spend your medical resources on saving a doctor against an 80 year man. We would do it for the greater good as the recovered doctor would then contribute to saving many more lives.
Just to own the libs
Let the virus spread and the NHS collapses, and suddenly its not "just" old people suffering (not that it is anyway), it's NHS staff and all the other people who are now dying of stuff the NHS would have been able to help with.
How do you solve this Coopster? Refuse admission to anyone with symptoms? Ship them all off somewhere? Genuinely curious how you expect this to work.0 -
Looking beyond our shores for a minute, looks like ÇOVID-19 could spell trouble for the single currency:
https://theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/mar/31/solidarity-members-eurozone-coronavirus-dutch-coronabond
Italy was predicted to be the first domino to topple not that long ago, albeit for different reasons."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Putting the emotive questions to one side, the figure is £60K, not £30K. And the average life expectancy for someone who has made it to 80 is 9 or 10 years. At 70 it's another 15 years.rick_chasey said:
Which person in your family would you give up for the good of the economy?coopster_the_1st said:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) put an upper band of £30,000 on the cost of adding one quality-adjusted life year (Qaly).Jeremy.89 said:To be fair to the newspapers. There is only one news story on atm and they have a whole paper to fill!
The whole right wing deliberately contrarian opinion article is pretty standard fare and pretty tedious. Expecting them to do a fair cost benefit analysis (I.e one that includes the cost of preventable deaths as a cost of opening up our economy again) is simply expecting too much within a short article.
I do think that there could be more emphasis on just how bad letting covid run riot would be from an economic pov (as well as a human pov) though.
Even Diane Abbott and her maths can see we blown this figure away.
And this does not take account of the life years list of the 99.5% who have to pick up the pieces
Secondly, 99.5% (or whatever the figure turns out to be) is the number of people who survive, the proportion unaffected beyond mild symptoms will be much smaller.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
