Should zero Covid be the objective?

[Scott777]

pandemic given that it has been responsible for more excess deaths since WW2.

But if you take population growth into account, this is not true.

[Thomas]

The ideologically driven stupidities of some of the usual suspects are indeed a wonder to behold.

im not sure what you  mean here steve.

People opposing lockdown or dissenting against governments tactics include a wide range of people with many differing political views , so where does the ideological bit come into it?

Barry and borkie are tories , sheepy a populist brexiter , not sure what scott politics are  , myself SNP , deppity dawg former labour and so on.

The rest of your post seems to grapple with which is the lesser of the two evils the rest of us are commenting on , and by and large while you ridicule many of us for opposing the continuation of governments tactics  , you readily admit yourself economically and  socially we cant continue with lockdowns and may end up having to live with the virus including increased mortality which is what by and large many others are saying as well.

Its a question of common sense and the acceptance risk is part of life , and balance in society .

I would question some of grumzeds rhetoric as wel regarding worst deaths since second world war , im not sure where this comes from , but i thought 2020 was the worst mortality rate in scotland since the millenium , and in england since 2003 , with practically every single year of the 20 th century bar four having a worse death rate , certainly in scotland , than 2020?

I dont agree with everything barry or scott for example are saying on this virus , but there can be no dobut in my mind they have made some valuable points countering the media narrative of shut up and eat your porridge the government and their advisors have spoken that others seem blindly willing to follow without question.

[srb7677]

I am astounded by the nonchalance of some to this pandemic given that it has been responsible for more excess deaths since WW2. All the main political parties largely support the government measures and there have been vast resources put in to try to the best way to handle it. Yet it does not stop people (e.g. Barry) referring to it as nonsense. Nobody actually likes these near lockdown situations but they are necessary, especially for us old bu**ers that are highly represented on this website. At least in WW2 if you chose to walk about during an air raid it would be only you being put at risk; in this case you may be responsible for catching the virus and passing on death sentences to others.

The ideologically driven stupidities of some of the usual suspects are indeed a wonder to behold.

Lockdowns are not about denying freedom for some nefarious purpose, however much the conspiracy theorists might like to imagine so. It is about saving lives.

Though the economic costs of this cannot be borne indefinitely. If the vaccines don't work we might as a society need to decide to invest massively in increased healthcare for those affected or else we are stuck with a choice of severe lockdowns or overwhelmed health services. If the vaccines don't pull our chestnuts out of the fire, we are going to have to face tough choices at some point. Lockdowns cannot continue indefinitely, and current healthcare provision cannot cope without them.

The bitter truth could end up being that we simply have to learn to live with a higher level of mortality amongst older people. I say this with concern since I am nearly 56 myself and am not getting any younger whilst my mum is 20 years older than me. Our chances of living to a ripe old age might be diminished and we may have to live with that reality. It is all down to the effectiveness of the vaccines in the end.

[grumzed]

I am astounded by the nonchalance of some to this pandemic given that it has been responsible for more excess deaths since WW2. All the main political parties largely support the government measures and there have been vast resources put in to try to the best way to handle it. Yet it does not stop people (e.g. Barry) referring to it as nonsense. Nobody actually likes these near lockdown situations but they are necessary, especially for us old bu**ers that are highly represented on this website. At least in WW2 if you chose to walk about during an air raid it would be only you being put at risk; in this case you may be responsible for catching the virus and passing on death sentences to others.

[Sheepy]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/brazil-variant-may-spread-more-easily-and-could-evade-immune-system-scientists-find/ar-BB1e9f2Y?ocid=msedgntp
If you say so Barry, but it seems it hasn't been milked enough yet. Or in other words unless enough people tell them to feck orf, they will just keep it up.
I bet if you look hard enough, you will find demonstrations are growing across the world daily.

[Barry]

I think zero Covid, would be nice, but is as "la la land" as zero crime as an objective.

We now have remnants of a manageable outbreak which is clearly on the wane. The government soon will not be able to justify extending this nonsense.

Oh, wait, the Brazilian variant, so what? Not one has shown to be more dangerous. Where's the hoo-haa over the "Kent variant"?
It's fizzled out like all the rest. I'm sure the vaccine will have helped, as has natural immunity, so let's get on with life.

[Scott777]

can produce a false positive, though this effect will decrease with time.
This feature fades eventually though.

This is not quite true, according to the inventor of PCR, although the chances may decrease over time.  Pieces of RNA would continue to exist, probably for life, which is why he said "With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody."  The only factors are the cycle threshold, and the frequency of testing.  At very high cycles (which I believe is what is used), if you keep testing, you will get a positive.  That means, anyone who had Covid at any time before, will eventually get a positive test.

[Sheepy]

Well, I certainly ain't looking it up for you, as there are enough articles already about it, maybe Scott can find you some. He is good at doing homework.
He might even find one or two about how the BOE has printed so much of it they will need to raise interest rates to stop hyperinflation.

[grumzed]

Scott, the Forbes article is quite interesting. The PCR test can still detect the virus RNA for some time after recovery from the illness so, in this case, can produce a false positive, though this effect will decrease with time. This is hugely better than giving a false negative of course as it errs on the safe side. The PCR test test is not used to show people are safe but primarily to show if they have it when they already have symptoms. I guess it may turn out to be an issue after the virus has been tamed (hopefully) when people who may have had symptomless COVID are deemed potentially infectious by such a test when they are not. This feature fades eventually though.

[grumzed]

Sheepy, I have not, and do not, show disrespect for anybody. I have not ignored his points but have tried to address them. I do not "run with the government line", excepting that in much of the issues there is no conspiracy and the government is following the line suggested by the science. There are corporate gains and corporate losers as a result of COVID. I have no idea whether the "top 10%" are growing in wealth or losing wealth. There are certainly some companies and individuals who will profit from COVID but the majority will not, though, as you might expect the wealthy are more insulated from events than those less fortunate. I did not bring up RT first either. The government has had to borrow to pay for all the handouts to help companies and individuals and which I think was necessary. The overall debt, which the Tories have tried to bring down, is now quite large. The idea is that by saving businesses and jobs (and allowing people not to starve as well) will allow the economy to pick up and that taxes will ultimately repay much of the debt. I don't see anybody disputing this, let alone me.

[Scott777]

I'm unsure from where you are getting your information from Scott, but as far as I can see the PCR test is very close to 100% accurate once a person is symptomatic but, if infected but not yet symptomatic, it picks up between somewhere between 70% and 98% of cases. This is because it depends on detection of the virus RNA which builds from the time of infection to the onset of symptoms. It does not distort any statistics on death because when people are said to die of the disease, you can be fairly sure that this is the case.

I used to know someone who worked for the WHO (not the rock band) and a more intelligent, dedicated and hard working man you could not find. I do not see the WHO as part of any conspiracy.

I fear that social media is, indeed a problem yet to be solved. Everyone has the right to have a voice whether they are right or wrong but how is an end user supposed to adjudge this? I think we have seen this in the USA with people believing absolutely crazy things and further propagating the absorbed ideas. It is a new phenomenon that the world has to deal with whilst retaining freedom of speech.

Well, I appreciate the civilised chat  , unlike the brick wall with certain people.  But I did post sources, including videos, so you'll have to do your own research on PCR.  I will end that point with this from Forbes.  "However, RNA can also be present, and therefore, detected by PCR after a virus has broken down (i.e., become non-infectious).  Although these results suggest that Covid-19 patients may not be infectious for weeks or months following resolution of their symptoms, the exact timeframe over which an individual can transmit the virus to others remains unclear." 

Who says it is near 100% for people with symptoms, and how can they know?  They probably assume the symptoms are Covid.

The WHO is not part of a conspiracy.  People follow their advice for various reasons, not because they conspired.

An end user is supposed to adjudge this by looking at total deaths per capita, which was unremarkable in 2020.  Beyond that, the default position is there is no deadly pandemic.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/05/29/some-coronavirus-patients-test-positive-for-weeks-interpret-those-results-with-caution/?sh=3ef28d343e43

[Sheepy]

Anyway Scott has made some very good points and backed it up, he is correct in that there is a drive to remove cash from society as the Bank Of England themselves admit they are ready to do, which does remove more freedoms and apart from moaning about RT and Social media, which we all know has it problems, you have ignored his points and ran with the Government line, he is also correct and so is RT about the Corporate gains from Covid and the top 10% growing their wealth because of Covid massively, you bought up RT in the first place and others compared it with the BBC, which as Thomas says is a propaganda factory. Scott is also correct in that the cost is irrespective in that the Government has no money in the first place, it will be everyone else who pays for it.
At least show him respect for what he is correct about.

[grumzed]

I'm unsure from where you are getting your information from Scott, but as far as I can see the PCR test is very close to 100% accurate once a person is symptomatic but, if infected but not yet symptomatic, it picks up between somewhere between 70% and 98% of cases. This is because it depends on detection of the virus RNA which builds from the time of infection to the onset of symptoms. It does not distort any statistics on death because when people are said to die of the disease, you can be fairly sure that this is the case.

I used to know someone who worked for the WHO (not the rock band) and a more intelligent, dedicated and hard working man you could not find. I do not see the WHO as part of any conspiracy.

I fear that social media is, indeed a problem yet to be solved. Everyone has the right to have a voice whether they are right or wrong but how is an end user supposed to adjudge this? I think we have seen this in the USA with people believing absolutely crazy things and further propagating the absorbed ideas. It is a new phenomenon that the world has to deal with whilst retaining freedom of speech.

[Sheepy]

I guess following the money gets you further along whichever side the fence you are on. One side can say oh feck and the other can say feck you.

[Scott777]

Scott, I thought you were implying a conspiracy but I understand that you think it is really that everyone involved in measures to combat the virus are actually doing it for the money. Does that include all the doctors and nurses, and lots of poorly paid researchers, too? Or are they just somehow convinced to go along with some establishment view. I note you also include the WHO in this as well as most mainstream politicians in most countries in the world (notable exceptions were Bolsinaro and Trump).

Clearly governments most countries have taken significant steps to control the virus at great expense. Do you think all governments are corrupt or are all taken in by those who you believe are making money out of this? It may be a cheaper option to let the virus take its course. The black death, which killed 60% of the population, was also a pandemic but was a bacterium not a virus and played out its course. Today this would be relatively easy to eliminate. A fast mutating virus is not. It is very unlikely that Covid will be eliminated in the near future but will have to be kept in check by annual innoculations for some significant percentage of the population. 

The key is to understand that the pandemic is based on the PCR tests.  The WHO advises that those tests are used to determine cases.  The cases then populate the Worldometer, Public Health England, etc.  Many doctors have criticised the test, and they get sacked.  If you post on social media about it, it often gets blocked.  The ones who remain get shoved on the BBC and Sky to say how important the cases are and how terrible the pandemic is.  Doctors in Germany are investigating this (one is a lawyer who previously won cases against various corporations), and their research shows money is offered for cases and/or deaths which are labelled as Covid, but not the flu.  If you create that incentive and punish people who criticise it, most people go along with it, and perhaps don't bother to research anything, because it's not in their interest.

The WHO was heavily funded by Bill Gates, I heard Chris Shitty was offered a job with the WHO.  What world leader would say no to the opportunity to create laws or regulations that effectively prohibit protest, destroy small businesses (thereby creating corporate monopoly), destroy cash, and try to justify digital ID?  The 'pandemic' is a dream come true for most politicians, and they have grabbed at the chance for more power.  The cost of everything is a red herring.  YOU will pay for it in the end, while they gain power.

Regarding protest, maybe my post (reply#1) from October 2019 will interest you:

"I'm sure some people thought I was crazy, but I've been saying for some time that the government is trying to ban protest..."

But that was scoffed at.  Then along came Covid, hey presto.

https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,55.30.html