Hancock's Half Hour

[Rorschach]

In the post I responded to you very clearly did not say it was only your opinion and you stated it in a manner that suggested it's a fact when what you have said above is not evidence it's only stats and even those can be questioned as there is every reason to believe they are not accurate. Presumably you had at least a rudimentary education and know how to phrase your sentences accordingly. :wink:

Your last sentence is just deflection tactics, I made no comment whatsoever regarding what could work and won't, I repeat because you seem to have reading or understanding issues - THEY DON'T YET KNOW. If they don't then you don't either, end of! :roll:

In the post I said "Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO" You know that IMO means "In My Opinion" right?

Then I asked you a question, which you have not answered yet :wink: Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?

 

[rafezetter]

Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.

Spread it among the young now while we have space in the hospitals for those that do get a bad case and let us reach herd immunity which will protect everyone come winter time.

Sure - but lets not forget your willingness to let all the old people die - makes me wonder if you've had the courage to say that to any people around you with elderly parents.

Having said that - does "herd immunity" actually exist?

I'm "immune" from the cold I had last time, but not the next. It's documwnted that many viruses mutate every 6 months give or take, so "immunity" to one strain provides little benefit against another.

While it's also accpeted that there are multiple strains of influenze and "common colds" around at the same time, will C19 follow the same pattern? Who knows.

"past performance is no guarentee of future performance" etc etc.

In light of that "Herd Immunity" seems to be a crutch being used to support unsubstantive viewpoints.

There's also another thing to consider which those talking "let's all catch it" have failed to remember - the more people it goes through the more chances it had to mutute into something else - whether it changes to something less lethal "because that makes sense" is pure nonsensical speculation.

It might go through someone who already has Hepatitus, or Polio or any one of the dozens of viruses that still exist in parts of the world and then merge to create a super virus - WE DO NOT KNOW - so the more people it goes through the greater the chances of a "super lethal" outcome as well as a "less lethal" mutation.

Can a virus be mutated by what we consider to be harmful bacteria? If so that opens even more possibilities.

Pretty sure viruses don't have te ability to CHOOSE how they mutate, it could be that the virus mutates into something far more deadly and that branch of mutuation kills ALL it's hosts and thus dies out, leaving the remaining microbes to mutate either following the same path or a different path.

There's a fact most people don't know about genetics and evolution, 99% of ALL SPECIES that has EVER existed on earth are EXTINCT. 99%.

So the hundreds of millions we have now are just a 1% sample of mutations. This proves that "evolution" can take many forms and speculation that the virus would somehow "know" which mutation works and which doesn't and it's therefore preferable for all the other microbes to follow it's mutation "path" is just.... ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[Blackswanwood]

From what I have read there is an emerging picture that those recovered have developed some form of immunity. There has however in everything I have read also been a caveat that it is too early to tell and any immunity could well be short lived. Someone was punting a theory on here earlier that the virus is mutating which if true could mean any immunity will be overcome?

Bottom line for me is we don’t know and so betting on a herd immunity strategy for the young is foolhardy as it creates a significant risk of spreading to those in higher risk groups.

Others may feel differently which proves Boris and Co are damned if they do or don’t as everyone has a view (including me) based on homespun wisdom!

Cheers

 

[Lons]

"Rorschach" In the post I said "Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO" You know that IMO means "In My Opinion" right?
Then I asked you a question, which you have not answered yet :wink: Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?

I didn't read that as being applicable to your last sentence in which I case apologise, if that was your intention so will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. Perhaps you need to start all your posts with a disclaimer that what you write is always in total only your opinion. :lol:

There isn't a definitive answer. Think about what I did say

How do you know that none of those who were infected initially without symptoms didn't later catch it a second time. You don't know,and neither does anyone else

It's an unknown but possible variable which may or may not be true but if it is then there could be potentially large numbers who could have contracted C19 more than once.

I repeat again :roll: I don't know, they don't know and neither do you.

 

[rafezetter]

Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?

Irrelevant!
Where is your evidence that a person is immune. You failed yet again to state it is only your opinion and instead stated as if it is a fact. :roll:
I repeat something I said in response to one of your other statements. THEY DON'T BLOODY KNOW - YET

EDIT:
I'll add something else to that. How do you know that none of those who were infected initially without symptoms didn't later catch it a second time. You don't know,and neither does anyone else

My evidence that people are immune after catching is that there have been 11.5 million confirmed cases and we zero confirmed cases of re-infection. If that changes and we start to see cases of reinfection then I will change my opinion. As I think you will find I did say it was my opinion in the first post. :mrgreen:

Think about this though, if infection doesn't cause immunity, what do we do? Herd immunity doesn't work then and neither does a vaccine.

Rorschach - It's generally accepted that your "immunity" will last 6 months. That's all you get, SIX MONTHS (see my post above as to why). Seeing as we are only in month 7 or 10 (depending on whether you agree China had isolated cases back in august and managed to keep it quiet) - your "there have been no re-infections thus "herd immunity" works is based on no FACTS of any kind.

As usual.

I'm beginning to wonder if all your posts are because deep down you are scared whitless and are clinging to these theories to placate that fear, to convince yourself "herd immunity" works, despite all documented scientific evidence that it doesn't save you from THE NEXT MUTATION.

My personal experience has it that there are only three reasons why people cling to irrational and false beleifs; optimism without proof, ignorance and fear.

There's enough evidence around to rule out ignorance, so for you it's either optimism without proof or fear, and optimism without proof is normally quashed with actual proof (at least for those intelligent enough to understand), which we have plenty of, so that leaves just one possibility left, and we all know how fear can twist a mind.

Either that or you're simply a straight up "Karen" - the new word that's being used to describe those people who cannot be reasoned or rationed with, no matter how true or factual the arguments are, they just won't have it; they are right and you are wrong, no matter what you say.

You've been likened to a "troll", but a troll is someone who actually DOES know the facts, but is saying the opposite to be bloody minded and cause a reaction for thier own lulz; A "Karen" however is just plain stupid.

Now considering as I said a huge swathe of factual evidence has been placed in front of you, and you've read it, because you've quoted it, yet still cling to your viewpoint that the lockdown was unnecessary (how about Texas and Nevada eh?), and "herd immunity will get us through" and "the lockdown is killing the vulnerable" even though the numbers of suicides are TINY compared to Covid deaths - 500,000 covid deaths compared to a few hundred suicides etc etc - I'm changing my personal viewpoint, you're not a troll, just a Karen who refuses to accept FACTS.

Infact far as I can tell the only thing you've said that is true is that the lockdown is hurting businesses - but when the alternative is weighed up against deaths, most of us have chosen HUMAN LIFE over MONEY, and yet you have loudly and repeatedly declared the opposite.

As I said I wonder if you've had the courage to air these views to everyone in your social circle; I'll bet everything I own (or will inherit) that you have not, when I was a kid we used to say "all mouth and no trousers".

Edit - yes yes "I said it was my opinion" - this is true, but that DOES NOT get you out of jail rorschach, because a person who keeps an opinion (and continues to spout it) even when it contravenes all accepted knowledge and FACTS, then they become something else. A "Karen".

We are not discussing religion here, where there are no provable "facts" one way or another (we'll leave out the compelling evidence of evolution to one side for now) - we are discussing the situation where the facts are immutable, the lockdown prevented the worlds health services from being overwhelmed and reduced the numbers of cases drastically or as you say "it wasn't a big deal / it never came to anything", while completely and wilfully ignoring the latter was BECAUSE of the former, not in spite of it.

You also continue to tout "Herd immunity" for C19 despite it having no basis or proof other than it has worked for previous viruses of ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STRAINS, and also ignoring that "herd immunity" only works FOR THAT PARTICULAR STRAIN OF VIRUS, and WHEN it mutates we are back to square #1, which is why influenza and the "common cold" keeps coming round every 6 months. The chances of this being the same situation for C19 - "LIMITED HERD IMMUNITY" is basically 100%.

So while it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, it has all the gravitas and factual basis of someone saying "the earth is flat".

Oh and.... The state of Florida reported 11,458 cases of COVID today. Just Florida.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I have been keeping out of this because of the intransigence of the thinking here - it just makes people froth at the mouth and slam on the table if they read something that goes against what they "know" to be true.

I am not an epidemiologists, so here are the words of quite a good one: https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/06/2 ... idis-says/

Dr. Ioannidis: 0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.

...

In terms of numbers of lives lost, so far the COVID-19 impact is about 1% of the 1918 influenza. In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, the impact of COVID-19 is about 0.1% of 1918 influenza, since the 1918 influenza killed mostly young healthy people (average age 28), while the average age of death with COVID-19 is 80 years, with several comorbidities.

...

Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria. I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential problems and not only on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-19.

There is more in the article - I have been selective for brevity, to avoid a huge cut&paste.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I commented after a newspaper article that I had read that there were supposedly two different strains of the virus, and a lady professor replied that by now there are probably hundreds of identifiably different mutation.

 

[rafezetter]

I have been keeping out of this because of the intransigence of the thinking here - it just makes people froth at the mouth and slam on the table if they read something that goes against what they "know" to be true.

I am not an epidemiologists, so here are the words of quite a good one: https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/06/2 ... idis-says/

Dr. Ioannidis: 0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.

...

In terms of numbers of lives lost, so far the COVID-19 impact is about 1% of the 1918 influenza. In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, the impact of COVID-19 is about 0.1% of 1918 influenza, since the 1918 influenza killed mostly young healthy people (average age 28), while the average age of death with COVID-19 is 80 years, with several comorbidities.

...

Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria. I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential problems and not only on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-19.

There is more in the article - I have been selective for brevity, to avoid a huge cut&paste.

Starvation can be dealt with IF the countries most at risk are willing - China is a hugely wealthy country so can afford to subsidise food from sources other than direct farming. India has the same ability; India has been accepting money from western nations for decades such that it does have enough money to help prevent starvation deaths, there are plenty of shops with food on the shelves (and in warehouses). I live with a person from Chenai who has been keeping me updated with whats going on in India and the Govt is doing very little to either prevent C19 from spreading or the additional strain on it's already struggling health system and food shortages - meanwhile the military and people in prominent positions are well fed.

It's all back down to the age old question "what price is a human life?"

Most western countries have MORE FOOD THAN THEY CAN SELL and have had for decades, as someone said for the last 30/40 years at least we've had the global pandemics of death by starvation AND obeseity AT THE SAME TIME.

This is not a covid pandemic situation, C19 just just forced it and other issues to the front of the queue where people can't ignore it anymore.

Feel free to talk to the multitude of dictator style African govts and warlords about feeding thier people with the hundreds of millions they have had in aid money from western countries.

All the people at risk of starvation have ALWAYS only been a few meals away from it anyway because of thier govts spending policies.

It's also a bit rich a Greek person saying this, who's no doubt benefitted from the govt spending systems which was guarenteed to put it's people in the poor house, but no-one complained at the time because everyone was happy not paying taxes and getting high value pensions paid by the govt.

(edited for the hard of understanding.)

 

[Trainee neophyte]

China is a hugely wealthy country so can afford to subsidise food from sources other than direct farming.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what "indirect farming" might be. Do you mean importing food? But everyone is on lockdown - supply chains are failing. I was reading today about seed potatoes being thrown away, because there is no market: every kilogram of seed potatoes = 20kg or more of produce in the shop after harvest, and many, many tons of seed potatoes are being destroyed. Mountains of meat has been thrown away (animals killed and buried), because the system is broken. But India can just import more food from elsewhere? Phew!

It's also a bit rich a Greek person saying this, who's no doubt benefitted from the govt spending systems which was guarenteed to put it's people in the poor house, but no-one complained at the time because everyone was happy not paying taxes and getting high value pensions paid by the govt.

In what way does financial skullduggery twenty years ago in Greece impact Covid19 lockdown today, worldwide? How about we discuss what the nice epidemiologist says about the cost of lockdown, the necessity of lockdown, and if it might be better taking nuanced, more targeted approach?

By discuss, I mean make an attempt to be nice to each other, and consider the topic at hand.

Give it a whirl - it might be fun. Not agreeing with you does not mean that I want to destroy every thing you stand for. It is not an attack on the very basis of your existence. I just have different ideas about how necessary economic activity is to continued human existence. No biggie.

 

[Rorschach]

Is rafezetter ranting about nonsense again? :roll: :lol:

 

[Andy Kev.]

Perhaps "indirect farming" means apple scrumping.

 

[RogerS]

..... In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, ....

Is that another way off saying 'old people don't matter' ? Who's next ? People who wear glasses ?

 

[Garno]

Is that another way off saying 'old people don't matter' ? Who's next ? People who wear glasses ?

I hope not, I'm already on the vulnerable list, if word got out I was a glasses wearing old git as well I would get strung up :shock:

 

[Trainee neophyte]

..... In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, ....

Is that another way off saying 'old people don't matter' ? Who's next ? People who wear glasses ?

It's what happens when you let bureaucrats loose with statistics. Or as Wikipedia says:

The quality-adjusted life year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a generic measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived.[1][2] It is used in economic evaluation to assess the value of medical interventions.[1] One QALY equates to one year in perfect health.[2] QALY scores range from 1 (perfect health) to 0 (dead).[3] QALYs can be used to inform personal decisions, to evaluate programs, and to set priorities for future programs.

Economics: the dismal science.

 

[RogerS]

..... In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, ....

Is that another way off saying 'old people don't matter' ? Who's next ? People who wear glasses ?

It's what happens when you let bureaucrats loose with statistics. Or as Wikipedia says:

The quality-adjusted life year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a generic measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived.[1][2] It is used in economic evaluation to assess the value of medical interventions.[1] One QALY equates to one year in perfect health.[2] QALY scores range from 1 (perfect health) to 0 (dead).[3] QALYs can be used to inform personal decisions, to evaluate programs, and to set priorities for future programs.

Economics: the dismal science.

Exactly my point, TN. Thin end of the wedge. Not that that bothers at least one person on this forum.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Exactly my point, TN. Thin end of the wedge. Not that that bothers at least one person on this forum.

I agree it is unpleasant, but you still have to make these calculations. You can't just say it's not fair, so everyone should have all the resources they need regardless of the cost, because there aren't enough resources. It's back to the infinite growth on a finite planet thing: eventually you will run out of stuff, and someone has to make awful decisions. The people in the USA who despise anything socialised like to refer to this kind of thinking as "death panels", which is intentionally emotive, but exactly what happens - someone has to decide the cost/benefit of any treatment. In a perfect world we would all be rich enough to afford the best possible private healthcare, but we can't. This started out looking at the costs involved in lockdown - who pays, who gains, and is it fair, and correct. At least, that's how I understand it, anyway.

I am currently burning through my savings because I have almost no income, due to government decree. Eventually I will run out of savings, and then what? Borrow money to buy food? Sell my home? How much should I pay to keep Lons feeling secure and safe? We need numbers, and we need a cost/benefit analysis. At what point do I refuse to take part in the charade? When I am bankrupt and destitute? When I have burned through my savings, but before I lose my home? What are your thoughts?

 

[Rorschach]

I am currently burning through my savings because I have almost no income, due to government decree. Eventually I will run out of savings, and then what? Borrow money to buy food? Sell my home? How much should I pay to keep Lons feeling secure and safe? We need numbers, and we need a cost/benefit analysis. At what point do I refuse to take part in the charade? When I am bankrupt and destitute? When I have burned through my savings, but before I lose my home? What are your thoughts?

I can almost guarantee you that the majority of people who are calling for lockdown etc to continue are people who have a steady income such as a pension and are relatively unaffected by the economics of all this. I've asked people before to put their cards on the table in terms of their age and living situation, they have not done so, I suspect they are ashamed to let it be known that they are old, rich (or at least comfortable) and scared of dying so they think everyone else should suffer to protect them.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

From today's Times -

Thirty-five thousand more people could die of cancer next year because of the impact of coronavirus, expert modelling has suggested.
Research by Health Data Research UK, the national institute for health data science, warned that the overwhelming focus on Covid-19 was likely to cause 18,000 excess cancer deaths. It said that this could almost double to 35,000 in the worst-case scenario.
It said that urgent referrals for cancer care had dropped and that treatments had been delayed or cancelled ...

 

[Rorschach]

From today's Times -

Thirty-five thousand more people could die of cancer next year because of the impact of coronavirus, expert modelling has suggested.
Research by Health Data Research UK, the national institute for health data science, warned that the overwhelming focus on Covid-19 was likely to cause 18,000 excess cancer deaths. It said that this could almost double to 35,000 in the worst-case scenario.
It said that urgent referrals for cancer care had dropped and that treatments had been delayed or cancelled ...

Sadly I think stories like this will only become more common.

I mentioned it here before (I think) but a family members cancer treatment suffered due to C19. What should have been a fairly small operation to remove a carcinoma was turned into a much bigger operation that almost (and could yet) cost them their arm. The operation has now been done but it was much more invasive than it would have been and they also now need several weeks of radiotherapy that would not have been required.

 

[RogerS]

This is an interesting article from the NY Times comparing deaths due to Covid-19 and historical deaths due to other diseases and events. Of course, the naysayers will argue that the stats are selective. But that would be missing the point. One stat is notable and that is the comparative death rate for Sweden which, as we all know didn't lockdown as much as we did.

It is a truly ostrich-like blinkered stance to say that we should not have gone into lockdown and that we should just have sat back and let Covid rip. Our death rates would have been horrendous, the NHS in total meltdown, NHS staff decimated. Cancer treatents ? Forget it for many years.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... story.html