Social distancing, .. what's that?

[Bacms]

Amazing 26 pages and the discussion is still the same folks denying any evidence that goes against their world view. Although I do appreciate the effort of those who have been trying to educate the rest with scientific evidence, at this point it should be obvious they don't care. So put your feet up and just let this thread die or become an echo chamber of denialism

 

[Rorschach]

Amazing 26 pages and the discussion is still the same folks denying any evidence that goes against their world view. Although I do appreciate the effort of those who have been trying to educate the rest with scientific evidence, at this point it should be obvious they don't care. So put your feet up and just let this thread die or become an echo chamber of denialism

You just described both sides! lol

 

[Bacms]

You just described both sides! lol

Only if you believe that opinions and scientific data and evidence holds the same value

 

[Rorschach]

Only if you believe that opinions and scientific data and evidence holds the same value

Both sides have provided scientific evidence and opinion. The problem is there is no scientific consensus (quite right too as that is how science works) so personal opinion and interpretation is added as well as views that cannot be determined by science such as the ethical discussions over acceptable risk and deaths.

 

[selly]

We all now the virus can be a serious. What we don't agree on is whether it is worth letting more people die not of covid to protect people from dying of covid

 

[artie]

I agree, claiming "locking down the world" does seem hysterical when the hit to GDP is 2.5%

What does GDP have to do with millions of people not being allowed to visit their granny?

That shows why using subjective, emotive adjectives such as "fearmongering" and "hysterical" is of no value.

What exactly is an emotive adjective?
I wasn't the best scholar, I must admit, but I have no memory of our english teacher ever mentioning such a thing.

I have asked Rorschach and you, who are using those terms, to qualify them, which allow the opportunity to have value in this debate........but neither of you do.

You should pay more attention, I gave you a definition of hysteria but you obviously didn't notice.

 

[Rorschach]

We all now the virus can be a serious. What we don't agree on is whether it is worth letting more people die not of covid to protect people from dying of covid

Bingo.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Some entertainment for the weekend.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...have-been-infected-with-covid19-a4563716.html
According to Off-guardian.org this proves that the Coronavirus has exactly the same fatality rate as your average influenza epidemic - around 0.14%

I appreciate that you may not want to visit such a scary, conspiracy-theory-ridden site so here is their thinking:

The global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been infected that is 780 million cases. The global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections is 1,061,539.

That’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with seasonal flu and the predictions of many experts from all around the world.

0.14% is over 24 times LOWER than the WHO’s “provisional figure” of 3.4% back in March. This figure was used in the models which were used to justify lockdowns and other draconian policies.

I wonder if the BBC will run with this logic?

The link to the page is here, if you are brave enough: https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/08...EQduLl1QEIUhjiQz_WjmPdggzTFdUCOtzo7zLVHZFk2SA

 

[RobinBHM]

Did you see the 3 main signatories? Not proper scientists? You have representatives of the 3 most important medical schools in the world!
I give up with you and will not engage any more, you are wasting our time.

Please can you explain to me how they can be called scientists if they sign up to something not based on science.


“Scientifically, no evidence from our current understanding of this virus and how we respond to it in any way suggests that herd immunity would be achievable, even if a high proportion of the population were to become infected. We know that responses to natural infection wane, and that reinfection occurs and can have more severe consequences than the first. It is hoped that vaccines will provide superior responses, and indeed vaccination remains the only robust means of achieving herd immunity. Moreover, in the US, with its high end (albeit restrictive) healthcare system, over seven million confirmed infections have occurred to date, yet this represents only a small percentage of that population and no evidence of herd immunity is apparent despite over 200K deaths and untold morbidity

 

[RobinBHM]

Both sides have provided scientific evidence and opinion

I am sorry but that is no really correct.

Both sides do not use equivalence in terms of scientific evidence.

For example, you have claimed that Covid is no worse than flu.....which science has proven to be incorrect, Covid is far worse in every metric.

The Great Barington Declaration is also not backed up by science.


We need to be very careful to avoid making claims " Covid isn't that bad because not many people have died" because all those arguments ignore the fact huge global efforts have been made to reduce infection spreading.

 

[Selwyn]

Please can you explain to me how they can be called scientists if they sign up to something not based on science.


“Scientifically, no evidence from our current understanding of this virus and how we respond to it in any way suggests that herd immunity would be achievable, even if a high proportion of the population were to become infected. We know that responses to natural infection wane, and that reinfection occurs and can have more severe consequences than the first. It is hoped that vaccines will provide superior responses, and indeed vaccination remains the only robust means of achieving herd immunity. Moreover, in the US, with its high end (albeit restrictive) healthcare system, over seven million confirmed infections have occurred to date, yet this represents only a small percentage of that population and no evidence of herd immunity is apparent despite over 200K deaths and untold morbidity

Because they know how viral curves work. Covid 19 looks to be no different from any viral curve.

So they may not have gathered "enough" evidence about this epidemic because epidemics are most easily viewed with hindsight but they know enough from other virus (sars, mersm, swine flu, bird flu) etc that the a disporoportionate response will have other unintended consequences. WHO does not advocate lockdown - it makes poor people poorer which is seemingly what you want to see

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Off-Guardian is being used as if it is some sort of authoritative source.

The oppositite seems to be the case - it was formed by three people who were previously banned from the real Guardian online comments.

The names of the individuals editing the site are believed to be psuedonyms. The ownership and funding is unclear.

It has a history of promoting conspiracy theories, some of which have subsequently been proved wrong and most unverifiable.

Believe it if you want, it's a free world. My view - it probably gets equal space in the WC for cleansing ones buttocks!

 

[Bm101]

Sometimes it surprising just how insightfully accurate a historic quote from a figure of recognised reknown can be when applied to a modern context.

'Dont believe it just because you read it. It's probably true if you read it on the internet though.'
Mark Twain.
1066

 

[RobinBHM]

- it makes poor people poorer which is seemingly what you want to see

I am not sure how helpful strawman logical fallacies are in debates.

From what research I've done, the Barington declaration seems to be based on ideology rather than science.

“We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple. We do not have herd immunity to the common cold despite many of us having one or more each year. It would have helped had the leading scientists who signed this declaration estimated achievability of herd immunity with different immune response decays.

“The desired range for herd immunity is not stated nor how far away we are from it, thus no estimate of the number of deaths or the life changing complications that will result in the lower vulnerability group is made. Whilst these numbers are much lower than in the elderly, they are not zero. I suspect the public would like to know this.

“A working description of vulnerability is not given, the Goldacre paper in Nature assigned probabilities, what is the personal score threshold being advocated?

“From a public health point of view, it would have been useful to estimate the gains with different assumptions of the timing of the arrival of the vaccine.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

 

[RobinBHM]

It seems that the Great Barrington Declaration has a hidden agenda.

As always with fact checking it pays to follow the money

The ‘think-tank’ behind the Great Barrington Declaration is part-funded by right-wing American billionaire Charles Koch, reports Nafeez Ahmed

Documents seen by VICE and Byline Times confirm that the Great Barrington Declaration advocating a ‘herd immunity’ approach to the COVID-19 pandemic has been sponsored by an institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science while investing in polluting fossil fuel industries.

On 3 October 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian free-market think-tank in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, hosted a private gathering of scientists, economists and journalists to discuss responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them was the distinguished Oxford University epidemiologist Professor Sunetra Gupta, among the most vocal proponents of a ‘herd immunity’ strategy.

 

[RobinBHM]

I am certainly not adverse to taking a different route for Covid, herd immunity should be explored.

What I don't advocate is making a change for ideological reasoning.

If herd immunity is going to be given serious consideration, those in favour need to provide both reasoning and expectations.

Herd immunity will kill people, we need to know how many
And we need to know how the vulnerable can be protected

The argument "we must have herd immunity because of lockdown isn't working"..... that's not acceptable reasoning.

 

[RobinBHM]

Off-Guardian is being used as if it is some sort of authoritative source

I've not heard of off guardian before.

 

[artie]

For example, you have claimed that Covid is no worse than flu.....which science has proven to be incorrect, Covid is far worse in every metric.

You are very fond of asking for proof, so would you mind providing proof to back up that statement?

 

[Selwyn]

I am not sure how helpful strawman logical fallacies are in debates.

From what research I've done, the Barington declaration seems to be based on ideology rather than science.

“We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple. We do not have herd immunity to the common cold despite many of us having one or more each year. It would have helped had the leading scientists who signed this declaration estimated achievability of herd immunity with different immune response decays.

“The desired range for herd immunity is not stated nor how far away we are from it, thus no estimate of the number of deaths or the life changing complications that will result in the lower vulnerability group is made. Whilst these numbers are much lower than in the elderly, they are not zero. I suspect the public would like to know this.

“A working description of vulnerability is not given, the Goldacre paper in Nature assigned probabilities, what is the personal score threshold being advocated?

“From a public health point of view, it would have been useful to estimate the gains with different assumptions of the timing of the arrival of the vaccine.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

Lockdowns are based on ideology and not on science though.

Of course they don't "know" for certain until after the event. But the evidence that this coronavirus is different to all the others appears not to be strong. Which is why they have come to some of their conclusions.

 

[Selwyn]

I am certainly not adverse to taking a different route for Covid, herd immunity should be explored.

What I don't advocate is making a change for ideological reasoning.

If herd immunity is going to be given serious consideration, those in favour need to provide both reasoning and expectations.

Herd immunity will kill people, we need to know how many
And we need to know how the vulnerable can be protected

The argument "we must have herd immunity because of lockdown isn't working"..... that's not acceptable reasoning.

Lockdown kills people too. Currently we have about 1 death per million in the UK. It is not a lot - those deaths are probably racked with comorbidities too.