Coronavirus

[Andy Kev.]

And of course the Guardian has no political bias whatsoever, does it?

Corona is a matter of virology and the practical response to it. The Guardian article is an attempt to colour the debate politically.

Science, ethically carried out, is utterly honest. Politics is never that. The only question is the extent of the dishonesty in any particular political stance. As it happens the realities of virology mean that we don't have much time to waste indulging in the low arts of politics, although I suppose that it does give the hopelessly ill-informed something to do.

 

[RogerS]

TN...don't these two contradict each other ?

Any of these businesses are allowed to operate without the presence of public.

At all points of service, every measure will be taken so that the maximum number of people in a queue is 5.

 

[RogerS]

Seen on another forum...

I've recently started on my 4th quarter century. If somebody queries my presence on a bus, in a shop or the library or at an uncancelled social event, I shall tell them that I'm 28 but I worry a lot. I shall of course stay in and seek advice should I become unwell, but I'm not prepared to be treated like a leper simply because of my date of birth. As they used to say on 'Monty Python', this is all getting VERY silly. Yesterday some scientist said that, if we're not happy with the government's approach, we should make up our own minds - which is what I'm doing.

Nary a truer word on all counts.

 

[Marineboy]

And of course the Guardian has no political bias whatsoever, does it?

Corona is a matter of virology and the practical response to it. The Guardian article is an attempt to colour the debate politically.

Science, ethically carried out, is utterly honest. Politics is never that. The only question is the extent of the dishonesty in any particular political stance. As it happens the realities of virology mean that we don't have much time to waste indulging in the low arts of politics, although I suppose that it does give the hopelessly ill-informed something to do.

I guess you’re saying I’m ill-informed. So be it. And of course everything in the Guardian is wrong because it’s left leaning, so people can chose to ignore inconvenient truths.

Politics determines how ethically carried out science is applied. Eg Trump’s denial of climate change. And the politics of Brexit means that we are less prepared than we would be to deal with the virus. The article makes it clear that this is not an opinion, but fact.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Covid 19 is a new threat and we have no recent experience of how to deal with it. The last on this scale was probably Spanish Flu 100 years ago. So much has changed we essentially have no experience as to how to deal with a global threat - SARS, AIDS, Ebola etc had very different characteristics.

That there seem to be a number of entirely plausible possible solutions to its management and ultimate eradication is no surprise. Scientists are also political animals - their funding usually relies upon government, their careers depend upon keeping their political masters happy. The conclusions reached by individual scientists will be impacted by assumptions about how the virus is spread - there are still a lot of unknowns. Or personal political views - eg: I don't trust the Tories/Boris, I didn't like Brexit.

If the policy adopted proves wrong, you can then clearly demonstrate (with the benefit of hindsight) that you were right all along. If the policy adopted proves correct, anything you said can be quietly forgotten.

These are not necessarily deliberate ploys for advancement and funding - just embedded behaviour patterns. Apologies to individual scientists who I am sure believe their conclusions are based upon a thorough analysis of the available data and science applied objectively to the problem they are trying to solve.

 

[cookiemonster]

Seen on another forum...

I've recently started on my 4th quarter century. If somebody queries my presence on a bus, in a shop or the library or at an uncancelled social event, I shall tell them that I'm 28 but I worry a lot. I shall of course stay in and seek advice should I become unwell, but I'm not prepared to be treated like a leper simply because of my date of birth. As they used to say on 'Monty Python', this is all getting VERY silly. Yesterday some scientist said that, if we're not happy with the government's approach, we should make up our own minds - which is what I'm doing.

Nary a truer word on all counts.

This approach raises an interesting moral question should the CMO prevail upon all those in high-risk groups to self-isolate.

Then again, millions have ignored the CMO's advice on **** and booze for generations without repercussions beyond their own health. And how many people has that killed?

 

[RogerS]

And of course the Guardian has no political bias whatsoever, does it?

Corona is a matter of virology and the practical response to it. The Guardian article is an attempt to colour the debate politically.

Science, ethically carried out, is utterly honest. Politics is never that. The only question is the extent of the dishonesty in any particular political stance. As it happens the realities of virology mean that we don't have much time to waste indulging in the low arts of politics, although I suppose that it does give the hopelessly ill-informed something to do.

I guess you’re saying I’m ill-informed. So be it. And of course everything in the Guardian is wrong because it’s left leaning, so people can chose to ignore inconvenient truths.

Politics determines how ethically carried out science is applied. Eg Trump’s denial of climate change. And the politics of Brexit means that we are less prepared than we would be to deal with the virus. The article makes it clear that this is not an opinion, but fact.

Pity you didn't research a little bit inmore detail the agenda and qualifications of the three 'experts' in that Guardian article.

Martin Mckee - the only 'medic/scientist' as such and has many, many anti-Brexit articles to his name. So no bias there then.

The other two are lawyers...carefully chosen, no doubt, to provide that 'balanced viewpoint' that the Guardian is renowned for.

 

[RogerS]

Seen on another forum...

I've recently started on my 4th quarter century. If somebody queries my presence on a bus, in a shop or the library or at an uncancelled social event, I shall tell them that I'm 28 but I worry a lot. I shall of course stay in and seek advice should I become unwell, but I'm not prepared to be treated like a leper simply because of my date of birth. As they used to say on 'Monty Python', this is all getting VERY silly. Yesterday some scientist said that, if we're not happy with the government's approach, we should make up our own minds - which is what I'm doing.

Nary a truer word on all counts.

This approach raises an interesting moral question should the CMO prevail upon all those in high-risk groups to self-isolate.

Then again, millions have ignored the CMO's advice on **** and booze for generations without repercussions beyond their own health. And how many people has that killed?

But it was their choice.

 

[Andy Kev.]

I guess you’re saying I’m ill-informed. So be it. And of course everything in the Guardian is wrong because it’s left leaning, so people can chose to ignore inconvenient truths.

Politics determines how ethically carried out science is applied. Eg Trump’s denial of climate change. And the politics of Brexit means that we are less prepared than we would be to deal with the virus. The article makes it clear that this is not an opinion, but fact.

I don't know if you're ill-informed or not.

However, if you do know little of virology, the last thing you want to be doing is developing your opinions on the basis of politically flavoured articles. RogerS has just done us all a favour by completely pulling the rug out from under the credibility of the blokes who wrote the article you cited. It's a bit of amusing but hackneyed polemic but only tangentially of any scientific worth.

The best thing you can do is read articles by virologists who explain how this virus works. In principle it works in the cells of the body as other viruses do but there are two factors: humans have no previous exposure to it and it spreads fast. It also has significantly unpleasant but not horrific death rates.

The biggest thing is the ticking clock. The govt. has realistically only got one shot at this. The govt. has scientific advisors and they take the lead in determining what that shot is. To try to make political capital out of this - as in the Guardian article - is pretty pathetic. Mind you, the Guardian has long since i.e. pre-Brexit, gone beyond self-parody. I can only think of two of its journalists who IMO are worth reading. The rest are just extremists and loons.

 

[Cordy]

You can tell the Germans are now taking the corovirus seriously.


They have started putting their towels on hospital beds

 

[RogerS]

..... The govt. has scientific advisors and they take the lead in determining what that shot is. ...

But they're wrong. Chris152 says that they are.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

You can tell the Germans are now taking the corovirus seriously.


They have started putting their towels on hospital beds

Any reports of the panic buying of sauerkraut and bratwurst yet?

 

[Andy Kev.]

For the radicals among you who think that maybe the biology of all this might be of relevance, have a butcher's at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KXHwhTghWI

It's as good an overview as any as to how viruses work.

 

[AES]

The average German (and Swiss) has already got a barrel of sauerkraut stashed in his/her cellar.

 

[cookiemonster]

Seen on another forum...

I've recently started on my 4th quarter century. If somebody queries my presence on a bus, in a shop or the library or at an uncancelled social event, I shall tell them that I'm 28 but I worry a lot. I shall of course stay in and seek advice should I become unwell, but I'm not prepared to be treated like a leper simply because of my date of birth. As they used to say on 'Monty Python', this is all getting VERY silly. Yesterday some scientist said that, if we're not happy with the government's approach, we should make up our own minds - which is what I'm doing.

Nary a truer word on all counts.

This approach raises an interesting moral question should the CMO prevail upon all those in high-risk groups to self-isolate.

Then again, millions have ignored the CMO's advice on **** and booze for generations without repercussions beyond their own health. And how many people has that killed?

But it was their choice.

Exactly. And what if those in high-risks groups choose to ignore any CMO advice to self-isolate? The NHS has just about managed to cope with diseases caused by smoking and drinking down the years, but could be overwhelmed (i.e. not be able to treat everyone affected) by this current crisis.

 

[RogerS]

This approach raises an interesting moral question should the CMO prevail upon all those in high-risk groups to self-isolate.

Then again, millions have ignored the CMO's advice on **** and booze for generations without repercussions beyond their own health. And how many people has that killed?

But it was their choice.

Exactly. And what if those in high-risks groups choose to ignore any CMO advice to self-isolate? The NHS has just about managed to cope with diseases caused by smoking and drinking down the years, but could be overwhelmed (i.e. not be able to treat everyone affected) by this current crisis.

But that is exactly it. Define 'high-risk'. Being defined that by your birth date is nonsensical. All (or many of) those who died happened to be over 70. More importantly they had underlying health issues. You know if you have or haven't got those.

 

[cookiemonster]

[/quote]

But that is exactly it. Define 'high-risk'. Being defined that by your birth date is nonsensical. All (or many of) those who died happened to be over 70. More importantly they had underlying health issues. You know if you have or haven't got those.[/quote]

Is there a relationship between age and mortality rates, or is it just that older folks are more likely than younger ones to have underlying health conditions? I don't know what the evidence says, but presumably the government will take the evidence into account in whatever proclamation is made (if one is made).

In any case doctors are obliged to make treatment decisions on medical grounds alone, so my question is moot.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

TN...don't these two contradict each other ?

Any of these businesses are allowed to operate without the presence of public.

At all points of service, every measure will be taken so that the maximum number of people in a queue is 5.

Yup. It's from a government.

I still like the idea of tattoos by post, and how do you do private escort services without customer involvement? I suppose that's why we have web cams, but tattoos tend to be a "while you wait" proposition.

 

[ScaredyCat]

I don’t get this widespread aversion to experts, whether you call them academics or scientists. You wouldn’t get an elected politician to advise you on how to make a dovetailed drawer.

Everybody knows that Cummings' behavioural scientist knows much more about viruses than any virologist. /s

.

 

[RogerS]

....
I still like the idea of tattoos by post, and how do you do private escort services without customer involvement?....

Ah, well...that's where AES's bratwurst comes in :wink: