"We are suffering from a media epidemic"

[Javert]

Over the last few days there has been growing speculation over whether some kind of herd immunity strategy may end up having to be employed, while proposals are now being put forward to allow younger workers back to their jobs before the economy flatlines.

By whom?



I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you posted, but actually you can theoretically deep freeze the economy for 3 months if you were to take the right approach.  I'll grant you, it may be impossible to do this effectively without a globally coordinated effort rather than just each country doing its own thing, but it's possible because in the end, money these days is just numbers in a computer - what matters is the things you have, food etc - theoretically it could be decided to provide everyone with free food for 3 months for example.  



Also, to hoist you by your own petard, how do you know that the economy can't be frozen for 3 months - it's never been tried before?

[Borchester]

And? There would be some merit to that if all "experts" agreed and all countries had the same strategies. But they don't, and they don't. Sweden may yet be proved wrong in its approach, or it may not. The UK meanwhile, veered from a strategy of "herd immunity" to total lockdown, from promising extensive testing to being unable to (as yet) deliver anything like the number promised, and is now facing criticism from many directions, while one of our "experts" admits we have much to learn from Germany. Which of these "experts" was wholly correct, the whole time?



Meanwhile again, pressure is mounting from business, industry, banks and small businesses for an exit strategy to lockdown because the country is bleeding to death. Many of these people are "experts" too. In business, in economics, in politics. They too have worked in their field for years and no doubt many have doctorates and degrees and Phds too. Are they right too because they are "experts"? Or is it only experts who pander to nappy wearing liberals like you who are right all the time? There are so many holes in your argument its like a sieve.



You don't even know what my position is. I don't believe "random opinions" are as valid as peer researched information, I am saying that there are different views and strategies in tackling the disease itself, as well as "expert" views on the potential damage the current strategy is going to cause to both our country and the world economy, which many are forecasting (Remember those models? They are using models too) many well be worse than the great depression. Is there a "model" we can use to "estimate" the number of deaths that may cause or contribute heavily to?



Over the last few days there has been growing speculation over whether some kind of herd immunity strategy may end up having to be employed, while proposals are now being put forward to allow younger workers back to their jobs before the economy flatlines. If you think we can "deep freeze" the global economy for 3 months and it still be there when you get back, you're a bigger fool than I thought.







Make that an even bigger fool. Some of the biggest feck ups in history have been military, and few if any operation ever goes by without some kind of balls up, mistake, accident, blue on blue, mis-indentification, incorrect target engaged or general feck up leading to death(s). Pertinent you should mention it because the no1 reason these things happen (apart from the weather) is due to incorrect or out of date intelligence, bad information leading to bad decisions. Yes, like most other professions, the military make bad decisions too on occasion. Those who plan and execute these operation are themselves "experts", all of whom have earned their ranks through military acadamies and many years of service. It doesn't make them perfect or "right" all the time. So, because they are "experts" with qualifications in their trade and many years of experience, they can't be challenged, eh? No more enquiries like Bloody Sunday or Iraq? Good luck with that in the world of liberal sensibilities, Javert. No one is infallible, no one is perfect, and no one is incapable of making poor decisions, no matter what their trade, profession or qualifications.









You've been told about this repeatedly by several posters, but you still continue to distort what other posters say, insert you own conclusions and motives to other peoples words, as well as writing downright lies. There's no point in asking you to show where any such thing was said, because we both know it damn well wasn't. I have not at any point suggested that "all safety measures should be removed".

 :hattip

[DeppityDawg]

Right but the information I am quoting is coming directly from detailed interviews with actual virologists and epidemiologists on science shows on the radio many of whom are working directly on this virus research. For example, they have said that putting all the research together that we have so far, they believe the final mortality rate will be around 1% or a bit less.  Of course it's not exact but it's unlikely to be way out.  



On the other hand as far as I can tell your disagreement is simply based on nothing others than your apparent belief that random opinions are just as valid as an expert who's been working in this field for years and has a phd in it.

And? There would be some merit to that if all "experts" agreed and all countries had the same strategies. But they don't, and they don't. Sweden may yet be proved wrong in its approach, or it may not. The UK meanwhile, veered from a strategy of "herd immunity" to total lockdown, from promising extensive testing to being unable to (as yet) deliver anything like the number promised, and is now facing criticism from many directions, while one of our "experts" admits we have much to learn from Germany. Which of these "experts" was wholly correct, the whole time?



Meanwhile again, pressure is mounting from business, industry, banks and small businesses for an exit strategy to lockdown because the country is bleeding to death. Many of these people are "experts" too. In business, in economics, in politics. They too have worked in their field for years and no doubt many have doctorates and degrees and Phds too. Are they right too because they are "experts"? Or is it only experts who pander to nappy wearing liberals like you who are right all the time? There are so many holes in your argument its like a sieve.



You don't even know what my position is. I don't believe "random opinions" are as valid as peer researched information, I am saying that there are different views and strategies in tackling the disease itself, as well as "expert" views on the potential damage the current strategy is going to cause to both our country and the world economy, which many are forecasting (Remember those models? They are using models too) many well be worse than the great depression. Is there a "model" we can use to "estimate" the number of deaths that may cause or contribute heavily to?



Over the last few days there has been growing speculation over whether some kind of herd immunity strategy may end up having to be employed, while proposals are now being put forward to allow younger workers back to their jobs before the economy flatlines. If you think we can "deep freeze" the global economy for 3 months and it still be there when you get back, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

How about this - you were in the army right?   How about I head out to Afghanistan and meet up with your army friends and start giving them hints about how to conduct their patrols, how to hold their guns and so on?  If they ask me what the F*** I am doing I will just tell them that you taught me that hundreds of years of military experience and training is irrelevant and that my opinion on how this military operation should be done is just as valid as theirs.  Onward the Light Brigade.

Make that an even bigger fool. Some of the biggest feck ups in history have been military, and few if any operation ever goes by without some kind of balls up, mistake, accident, blue on blue, mis-indentification, incorrect target engaged or general feck up leading to death(s). Pertinent you should mention it because the no1 reason these things happen (apart from the weather) is due to incorrect or out of date intelligence, bad information leading to bad decisions. Yes, like most other professions, the military make bad decisions too on occasion. Those who plan and execute these operation are themselves "experts", all of whom have earned their ranks through military acadamies and many years of service. It doesn't make them perfect or "right" all the time. So, because they are "experts" with qualifications in their trade and many years of experience, they can't be challenged, eh? No more enquiries like Bloody Sunday or Iraq? Good luck with that in the world of liberal sensibilities, Javert. No one is infallible, no one is perfect, and no one is incapable of making poor decisions, no matter what their trade, profession or qualifications.

Using the deppity approach, all safety meaures in life of any kind should be removed otherwise we can't prove they they achieved anything. It might just be coincidence that life expectancy went up massively when medical science was invented.

 You've been told about this repeatedly by several posters, but you still continue to distort what other posters say, insert you own conclusions and motives to other peoples words, as well as writing downright lies. There's no point in asking you to show where any such thing was said, because we both know it damn well wasn't. I have not at any point suggested that "all safety measures should be removed".



Post edited by moderators.

[Javert]

Sorry also one other question. What about the scenes from New York where they have just announced that so many people are dying that they have to dig trenches in the parks for temporary burials.  



All no big deal I suppose and just CGI fakery perhaps?



In fact using this really weird logic, why don't we just close the hospitals?  According to your logic, we can't know whether any lives are saved by any hospital treatment because we don't know what would have happened if that person hadn't have been admitted to hospital.  It's all just conjecture And inaccurate forecasting that the person with end stage liver  failure would have died if they hadn't been hospitalised.



Using the deppity approach, all safety meaures in life of any kind should be removed otherwise we can't prove they they achieved anything.  It might just be coincidence that life expectancy went up massively when medical science was invented.

[Javert]

I'm going to answer parts of this, otherwise I'll be here all fecking day







You have yourself admitted we'll never know, and that no one will know how many people will die - therefore however many die, you'll be relieved because the lockdown "saved" hundreds of thousands of lives, in a kind of self fulfilling prophesy that justifies "lockdown" without any factual data on how this claim of "half a million will die" is justified.



You also won't know a) how many people died as a result of other primary causes exacerbated by the virus and b) how much longer they may have lived had they NOT contracted the virus. You've no idea how many "hundreds of thousands" of lives have been saved, anymore than we'll know how many "hundreds of thousands" of lives were not at risk in the first place because the half a million figure was based on a model/estimates.







Yes, I disagree. How can we know the mortality rate if we don't know how many people in the population have got it? All we can know is the mortality rate among those we DO know have it because they tested positive for it. If 100,000 test positive, and 1000 die, we can say 1% is the mortality rate among those TESTED. If a million in the population have it, and a 1000 die then the REAL mortality rate is 0.1%. You cannot know what the approx. mortality rate is until you can test large numbers of people.







How would we know that? The current MR is about 10% of cases tested. It could have a 100% mortality rate, but until you can test, you cannot know. Therefore any "model" or estimate based on MRs is currently lacking these unknowns.







I'd need to see what data/information they (the experts  :roll: ) are basing this view on before I would comment - I'm just a "numpty" on the internet, what would I fecking know anyway? What I do know we need now we've been backed into a lockdown corner, is for this government to pull its fecking finger out and get testing sorted out.







That would appear to the case, so yes I agree.







Virtually everything you say it seems, and on virtually every subject from Brexit to Ballroom dancing  ::

Right but the information I am quoting is coming directly from detailed interviews with actual virologists and epidemiologists on science shows on the radio many of whom are working directly on this virus research. For example, they have said that putting all the research together that we have so far, they believe the final mortality rate will be around 1% or a bit less.  Of course it's not exact but it's unlikely to be way out.  



On the other hand as far as I can tell your disagreement is simply based on nothing others than your apparent belief that random opinions are just as valid as an expert who's been working in this field for years and has a phd in it.



How about this - you were in the army right?   How about I head out to Afghanistan and meet up with your army friends and start giving them hints about how to conduct their patrols, how to hold their guns and so on?  If they ask me what the F*** I am doing I will just tell them that you taught me that hundreds of years of military experience and training is irrelevant and that my opinion on how this military operation should be done is just as valid as theirs.  Onward the Light Brigade.

[DeppityDawg]

I'm going to answer parts of this, otherwise I'll be here all fecking day

for me it's worthwhile to save several hundred thousand lives, even if I know that many of you will claim later on that those lives would never have died in the first place.

You have yourself admitted we'll never know, and that no one will know how many people will die - therefore however many die, you'll be relieved because the lockdown "saved" hundreds of thousands of lives, in a kind of self fulfilling prophesy that justifies "lockdown" without any factual data on how this claim of "half a million will die" is justified.



You also won't know a) how many people died as a result of other primary causes exacerbated by the virus and b) how much longer they may have lived had they NOT contracted the virus. You've no idea how many "hundreds of thousands" of lives have been saved, anymore than we'll know how many "hundreds of thousands" of lives were not at risk in the first place because the half a million figure was based on a model/estimates.

- Do you disagree that this illness has roughly a 1% mortaility rate even when appropriate hospital treatment is provided?

Yes, I disagree. How can we know the mortality rate if we don't know how many people in the population have got it? All we can know is the mortality rate among those we DO know have it because they tested positive for it. If 100,000 test positive, and 1000 die, we can say 1% is the mortality rate among those TESTED. If a million in the population have it, and a 1000 die then the REAL mortality rate is 0.1%. You cannot know what the approx. mortality rate is until you can test large numbers of people.

Do  you disagree that this illness could have up to a 10% mortality rate if zero treatment was provided for anybody - e.g. if this was happening in 1720 instead of 2020?

How would we know that? The current MR is about 10% of cases tested. It could have a 100% mortality rate, but until you can test, you cannot know. Therefore any "model" or estimate based on MRs is currently lacking these unknowns.

Do you disagree withe the experts view that the R0 for this illness is between 2.5 and 3 if no action whatsoever is taken, and if only minor measures like "advising" people to take care are taken, it is still liketly to be 2 or just under 2.  This means the number of people that each infected person is likely to infect themselves.

I'd need to see what data/information they (the experts  :roll: ) are basing this view on before I would comment - I'm just a "numpty" on the internet, what would I fecking know anyway? What I do know we need now we've been backed into a lockdown corner, is for this government to pull its fecking finger out and get testing sorted out.

Do you disagree that there is no significant level of immunity in the general population because this is a brand new virus that the human immune system never encountered before?

That would appear to the case, so yes I agree.

Which bit of the data assumptions do you disagree with and why?

Virtually everything you say it seems, and on virtually every subject from Brexit to Ballroom dancing  ::

[Scott777]

Also, what bit is it that you don't agree with in the calculations:

- Do you disagree that this illness has roughly a 1% mortaility rate even when appropriate hospital treatment is provided?

I'm going to chime in here, and remind you that no one really knows, but the only trials (that I know of) are still in Iceland, providing a 0.03% rate.  If you know different, just say why.

[Javert]

Here we go. Javert switching to making things up again. Where did I say anything about the year 2000 bug. Ffs I didn't evn start posting on the old forum till about 2012? As for "numpties on an internet forum" I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I don't think anyone has yet made a forecast of their own have they?



So basically then, we'll never actually know the answer? In that case, they could never have been wrong then? We must just accept that if there are less deaths than whatever the "model" said would happen, then the model must have been right? It couldn't possibly be because the model wasn't right, and it wasn't right because they don't fecking KNOW the answer, they are using estimates?



By the way Javert, who is actually suggesting "doing nothing"? I'm not aware of anyone suggesting we should "do nothing" or that "letting 100,000 people die" is ok? Has anyone said that? Or is that you adding your own word to suit the argument yet again? Could it just be that some of us do not agree with society being closed down like this because we think the damage that will cause will exceed that caused by the virus. And unless the fecking "experts" can provide factual evidence to support their "models" many will continue to believe that other options must be considered or we'll have no society left to go back to.

OK fine - so what is your suggested action?  You don't advocate doing nothing, but you do not have another solution?



Also, for the record, I think the government's financial response to this has been hamstrung by trying to address something that has never happened before (it's never happened that we had the technology and science to save all these lives by freezing the entire global economy for 3 months), but by working within the constraints of the existing system.  I would have preferred much more imaginative methods like for example:



- Everyone adult in the country is immediately given a universal small income on a temporary basis, with any actual money that they earn deducted, and they will have to pay it back later in future years if they have a lot of assets.

- All companies can default on / write off their creditors and debts for a specific number of months (extendable), calculated on a periodic basis and pro rated to the loss of revenue that they are experiencing - e.g. to put it over simply, if their revenue has fallen by 90%, they can default on 90% of their loan payments during the corresponding financial periods, and the creditor has to take a hit.  Their creditors would then get to do the same, with all companies having to take a "haircut" including the banks and shareholders.

- If the economy has really collapsed and we are in a recession, consideration should be given to confiscating some of the assets of those who have a huge amount of assets e.g. amounts higher than the inheritance tax threshold for example.



I'm sure that most likely includes me, but Desperate times calls for desperate measures, and though you may disagree, for me it's worthwhile to save several hundred thousand lives, even if I know that many of you will claim later on that those lives would never have died in the first place.



Also, what bit is it that you don't agree with in the calculations:

- Do you disagree that this illness has roughly a 1% mortaility rate even when appropriate hospital treatment is provided?

- Do  you disagree that this illness could have up to a 10% mortality rate if zero treatment was provided for anybody - e.g. if this was happening in 1720 instead of 2020?

- Do you disagree withe the experts view that the R0 for this illness is between 2.5 and 3 if no action whatsoever is taken, and if only minor measures like "advising" people to take care are taken, it is still liketly to be 2 or just under 2.  This means the number of people that each infected person is likely to infect themselves.

- Do you disagree that there is no significant level of immunity in the general population because this is a brand new virus that the human immune system never encountered before?



Which bit of the data assumptions do you disagree with and why?

[patman post]

Russia confirmed 954 new coronavirus infections on Monday, bringing the official number of cases to 6,343 and marking a new record one-day increase in infections.



Putin has signed legislation imposing severe punishment — including up to five years in prison — for people convicted of spreading false information about the coronavirus. The legislation also imposes punishments for people breaking coronavirus quarantine rules, including up to seven years in prison.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/06/coronavirus-in-russia-the-latest-news-april-6-a69117">https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/ ... l-6-a69117">https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/06/coronavirus-in-russia-the-latest-news-april-6-a69117



Following a recent phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, the Russian government sent Italy nine aircraft and more than 100 experts, along with medical supplies. Having initially received no help from fellow European Union member states, in desperation Italy—the fourth-largest contributor to the EU budget—had turned to Russia. (Germany, France, and Austria have since sent millions of face masks to Italy; the Czech Republic has sent a few thousand protective suits. Germany has flown several dozen Italian and French patients to German hospitals. Poland has sent twelve doctors.)



When the much-anticipated Russian delivery arrived, however, the Italians discovered that the vast majority of the supplies were useless for coronavirus treatment.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/30/russia-china-coronavirus-geopolitics/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/30/ru ... opolitics/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/30/russia-china-coronavirus-geopolitics/



The C.I.A. has been warning the White House since at least early February that China has vastly understated its coronavirus infections and that its count could not be relied upon as the United States compiles predictive models to fight the virus, according to current and former intelligence officials.



The intelligence briefings in recent weeks, based at least in part on information from C.I.A. assets in China, played an important role in President Trump's negotiation on Thursday of an apparent détente with President Xi Jinping of China. Since then, both countries have ratcheted back criticism of each other.



Obtaining a more accurate count of the Chinese rate of infection and deaths from the virus has worldwide public health implications at a time of grave uncertainty over the virus, its speed of transmission and other fundamental questions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/us/politics/cia-coronavirus-china.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/us/p ... china.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/us/politics/cia-coronavirus-china.html



On the whole I prefer to read what I want when I want,  and not be told by a PR company's outside celebrity writer that too much news is bad...

[DeppityDawg]

It's unprovable because the actions being taken now will prevent that number of people from dying.  



Where is your proof that if we explode a nuclear bomb in central london, millions of people will be killed?  It's never been done before so it's just a forecast - it might not happen.  That is as ridiculous as claiming that the world's best virologists and epidemiologists are less qualified than a few numpties on an internet forum to decide how many people will die from a new virus.



As I remember, the SARS outbreak was contained and never got into open circulation except in China where they indeed did have major lockdowns just like the one we have here today, although it's not that widely known here.  The forecasts about SARS were probably about what would happen if it got into open circulation unchecked, just like the forecasts of hundreds of thousands dead



Since you keep challenging the half a million number, let's say I am wrong it's "only" 100,000.  That's ok then is it?



Of course, I'm very well aware that if the strategy succeeds and only a few thousand or a few tens of thousands die, you and others will then claim that I was completely wrong all along, just like you did with the year 2000 computer bugs and so on, but many of us know that the reality is that this was avoided precisely by taking robust mitigating action.

Here we go. Javert switching to making things up again. Where did I say anything about the year 2000 bug. Ffs I didn't evn start posting on the old forum till about 2012? As for "numpties on an internet forum" I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I don't think anyone has yet made a forecast of their own have they?



So basically then, we'll never actually know the answer? In that case, they could never have been wrong then? We must just accept that if there are less deaths than whatever the "model" said would happen, then the model must have been right? It couldn't possibly be because the model wasn't right, and it wasn't right because they don't fecking KNOW the answer, they are using estimates?



By the way Javert, who is actually suggesting "doing nothing"? I'm not aware of anyone suggesting we should "do nothing" or that "letting 100,000 people die" is ok? Has anyone said that? Or is that you adding your own word to suit the argument yet again? Could it just be that some of us do not agree with society being closed down like this because we think the damage that will cause will exceed that caused by the virus. And unless the fecking "experts" can provide factual evidence to support their "models" many will continue to believe that other options must be considered or we'll have no society left to go back to.

[patman post]

Very useful.

First reader response looks like a reply from a guy call Lankou who used to post on Steve's forum.  ::

I remember him now, but hadn't registered his absence because I must have assumed he'd registered on here as someone else...

[Barry]

NHS England has clarified to GPs the death certification process in the wake of the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak.

In an information note, issued earlier this week, NHS England confirmed to GPs that Covid-19 is acceptable as a direct or underlying cause of death for a death certificate.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/clinical-specialties/respiratory-/gps-told-how-to-certify-coronavirus-deaths/20040319.article">http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/cl ... 19.article">http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/clinical-specialties/respiratory-/gps-told-how-to-certify-coronavirus-deaths/20040319.article

Very useful.

First reader response looks like a reply from a guy call Lankou who used to post on Steve's forum.  ::

[patman post]

NHS England has clarified to GPs the death certification process in the wake of the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak.

In an information note, issued earlier this week, NHS England confirmed to GPs that Covid-19 is acceptable as a direct or underlying cause of death for a death certificate.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/clinical-specialties/respiratory-/gps-told-how-to-certify-coronavirus-deaths/20040319.article">http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/cl ... 19.article">http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/clinical-specialties/respiratory-/gps-told-how-to-certify-coronavirus-deaths/20040319.article

[Javert]

Are you an expert in this field, because I'm not.

However, I have seen a lot of death certificates.

The primary cause of death is usually what ended the life. Often respiratory arrest, myocardial infarction - heart attack, loss of blood due to trauma, but COVID-19 is an illness and infection but it provokes respiratory arrest, or hypoxia due to lung damage or being filled with pus or other fluids in the case of pneumonia.

I would expect that the most common PRIMARY cause of death in COVID19 cases is "Bilateral pneumonia". That's double pneumonia to the old fashioned types.

You are probably right.  I can only say that when I discussed it with the GP, his comment to my wife was "If you had died we would have put Covid-19 on the death certificate".

[Javert]

I don't want to appear sexist, but between you and I Tommy, some of our posters are acting a bit girlie aren't they?  

Well I have already had Covid-19 so I don't have any personal reason to be scared of anything.