Should have a picture of "The three Scousers" on there, be even more appropriate.
Should have a picture of "The three Scousers" on there, be even more appropriate.
Don't roll with a pig in poo. You get covered in poo and the pig likes it.
Lady on the TV last night telling the sad story of how her husband contracted Covid and died, in hospital in September. She then continued to attempt to shame those people who don't socially distance, etc. thereby "spreading the disease".
Did she convey a faulty understanding of the facts regarding this pandemic? These seem to be that:
1. We're all inevitably going to become infected, unless you live on your own on a 'island' for the rest of your life with no contact with other humans.
2. If, for what ever reason your physical constitutions is such that you have a severe reaction to the infection, then inevitably you'll going to have a severe reaction. If it's going to be fatal to you, then it's going to be fatal to you. Lockdown delays the inevitable, tragically.
3. If there are too many severe infections all at once, then the NHS will become overwhelmed and those severely infected who might have been helped to avoid death, will succumb and die.
4. Lockdowns, simply control the number of severely infected coming to the attention of the health service at any one time.
5. Unfortunately, lockdowns also cause many non-covid deaths and exacerbate other health (mental and physical)issues causing non-covid suffering.
6. We're between a rock and a hard place. But the lady was mistaken in her shaming of others?
7. Don't hold your breath (literally and metaphorically!) for a vaccine. It not coming any time soon - if ever.
Other factors not considered? Incorrect facts above?
Am Yisrael Chai
I agree with most of that. I'm not sure that we will all end up getting infected but many will. Lockdowns are at best delaying deaths rather than preventing them. I would add that they also wreck the economy and lead to loss of livelihoods and mass unemployment.Originally Posted by Mossdog
It is interesting that even some people at the WHO are moving away from advocating lockdowns. Dr David Nabarro, a WHO special envoy for Covid-19, said in an interview with Andrew Neil, ‘We in the WHO do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus… We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method.’
I think nobody is (yet) talking of full lockdowns though are they? More degrees of restrictions to try and delay the spread of the virus and maybe a temporary fire break lockdown. The argument that delaying death isn't avoiding death is a bit of a naff one in that that's the whole point of life (and medicine) surely; you know so that you live as long as you can rather than die. As Yossarian decided in Catch 22: "I'm going to live forever or die in the attempt"
Everything also goes back to the NHS's ability to cope with things, as they can only fight so many fires - if the virus isn't restrained, they simply won't be able to cope. Its the covid effect in hospitals that has caused the massive delay on cancer screenings and a whole host of other consultations and operations and piling more covid on them is only going to make that worse
Yes, I understand the arguement that.. "hey, did your treatment mean you're going to live forever? No! So you're just staving off the inevitable then?"The argument that delaying death isn't avoiding death is a bit of a naff one in that that's the whole point of life (and medicine) surely; you know so that you live as long as you can rather than die. As Yossarian decided in Catch 22: "I'm going to live forever or die in the attempt"..but my point was (perhaps ineptly expressed), that you can't realistically 'hide' from this virus, and that with the NHS focusing so much on saving your 'fire' they're letting lots of other houses burn down! Sorry, terrible mixture of metaphors there - but you get the point - maybe. Anyway, off for a run around Tebay, making the most of the time left to me!!
Am Yisrael Chai
There's a little bit more context to this in the following articles. (Well, actually, by "a little bit more" I really mean "some".)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#35ad4a25158c
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1017165.html
And at the risk of being called a pedant, I would like to point out the use of the word "primary" in the quotation provided by Muddy.
Now I think of it, I'm not sure the WHO themselves ever have said that lockdowns should be the primary source of control, have they? I thought they were rather keen on test and trace. In fact, here's the WHO Director-General on 16th March last:
We have also seen a rapid escalation in social distancing measures, like closing schools and cancelling sporting events and other gatherings.
But we have not seen an urgent enough escalation in testing, isolation and contact tracing – which is the backbone of the response.
Social distancing measures can help to reduce transmission and enable health systems to cope.
Handwashing and coughing into your elbow can reduce the risk for yourself and others.
But on their own, they are not enough to extinguish this pandemic. It’s the combination that makes the difference.
As I keep saying, all countries must take a comprehensive approach.
But the most effective way to prevent infections and save lives is breaking the chains of transmission. And to do that, you must test and isolate.
[...]
Once again, our key message is: test, test, test.
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/deta...-16-march-2020
So, it seems that they've always been keen on a combination of things rather than relying on one, but with test and trace (not lockdown) as the 'backbone of the response', and with the emphasis being on ensuring that health systems can continue to cope. So, perhaps, saying "even[my emphasis] some people at the WHO are moving away from advocating lockdowns" could perhaps be construed as constituting a slight distortion of the previous position of the WHO in this matter.
Precisely.
The focus on whether or not lockdowns work, and the subsequent second wave infections (and third and fourth which will surely come) is a distraction from test, trace and isolate which is shockingly bad in this country.
....it's all downhill from here.
The virus has infinite patience to wait until it can again freely kill NHS patients after the population has lost patience with lockdown restrictions to its "freedom".
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
I wonder how she thinks her husband contracted it? If he was socially distancing then according to that logic he wouldn't have got it.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
The Tier 3 restrictions on Liverpool aren't quite as severe as the lockdown earlier in the year but they aren't far off - closing lots of businesses and prohibiting meeting people from other households even outside. Not only that but Sage advocates this "circuit breaker" for the whole country an approach now supported by Labour. So Cornwall for example, which has hardly any infections at the moment would have to go into lockdown too. If that isn't the height of stupidity I don't know what is. You can bet this wouldn't be for just a few weeks either.I think nobody is (yet) talking of full lockdowns though are they? More degrees of restrictions to try and delay the spread of the virus and maybe a temporary fire break lockdown. The argument that delaying death isn't avoiding death is a bit of a naff one in that that's the whole point of life (and medicine) surely; you know so that you live as long as you can rather than die. As Yossarian decided in Catch 22: "I'm going to live forever or die in the attempt"
Everything also goes back to the NHS's ability to cope with things, as they can only fight so many fires - if the virus isn't restrained, they simply won't be able to cope. Its the covid effect in hospitals that has caused the massive delay on cancer screenings and a whole host of other consultations and operations and piling more covid on them is only going to make that worse
I think we have to have some restrictions to ensure that the health system is not overloaded. There also needs to be better protection for old and vulnerable people, who are most prone to the worst effects of the virus so for example rigorous and regular tests for staff going into care homes.
You said that the argument about delaying death is a naff one. Perhaps it would be if lockdown had no adverse consequences but obviously it does. Should we go into lockdown in winters when there is a severe flu epidemic?
With regard to Covid delaying consultations and operations, the problem is this was still happening when infections were at a tiny level in the summer and most hospitals didn't have a single covid patient in them.
