"We are suffering from a media epidemic"

[Scott777]

The point is that it's unacceptable to let up to half a million or more people die unnecessarily from Covid 19 within the space of a few months.

I agree, but see no evidence at all that that would happen, even if we ended the lockdown.

[Scott777]

Good, as we are agreed that Dohertys plan will stop the spread of Coronavirus.



With what authority, and evidence do you make this claim? Or is it simply a personal idea, that you assume will work?

Yes, Doherty's plan should work, and in the mean time, the economy will take a nose dive.



Yes, I assume that suggestion will work.  If vulnerable are fully locked down, how do you expect them to get the virus?  Do I need authority? or is it common sense?

[Javert]

It's interesting to note how many 'famous' people have had it, and the consequences.  I can think of Tom Hanks (63), Charlie (71), BoJo (55).  None of them have been seriously ill.  Anyone who can add to that list?  It seems funny that all the people who we actually know about with Covid-19 are rather well, almost as if that's the norm.   :shrg:



So, Mr, Duck, did we downplay climate change?  Leaving the EU and the whole economic shock?  Are they wreaking havoc now?

It is the norm - most people with Covid 19 will recover, and the majority will not need hospitalisation.  



The point is that it's unacceptable to let up to half a million or more people die unnecessarily from Covid 19 within the space of a few months.  I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the electorate agree with that position, although there will always be some outliers like psychopaths and so on who won't care and would rather let those people die so they can make more money.

[Nalaar]

"Doherty states the Compliant lockdown population must be 80-90%".



"Australian Mathematical model paper is published which clearly predicts that compliance with 'social distancing' must be 80 or 90% otherwise it will not work."



Here's the problem.  You interpret only what you want to believe.  What does "must be 80 or 90% otherwise it will not work" mean?  What does "work" mean?  I could interpret this as "will not work to stop the spread of Coronavirus," which I agree with.

Good, as we are agreed that Dohertys plan will stop the spread of Coronavirus.



Now -

However, that was not my point.  I suggest a lockdown of only the vulnerable, not to stop the spread in the population, but to prevent THEM from getting it.  The rest will get it, become immune, the virus dies, problem solved.  The Doherty quotes don't in any way contradict that.

With what authority, and evidence do you make this claim? Or is it simply a personal idea, that you assume will work?

[Scott777]

How odd. You could of saved yourself (and others) a fair bit of time by reading the text provided in the OP.



Please read Oxford said before asking me about what he said.  



https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford/">https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-vie ... hn-oxford/">https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford/

You said: "we need to maintain a social distancing program for 80-90% of the population for several weeks to bring down deaths".



Doherty said: "Australian Mathematical model paper is published which clearly predicts that compliance with 'social distancing' must be 80 or 90% otherwise it will not work."



Here's the problem.  You interpret only what you want to believe.  What does "must be 80 or 90% otherwise it will not work" mean?  What does "work" mean?  I could interpret this as "will not work to stop the spread of Coronavirus," which I agree with.  However, that was not my point.  I suggest a lockdown of only the vulnerable, not to stop the spread in the population, but to prevent THEM from getting it.  The rest will get it, become immune, the virus dies, problem solved.  The Doherty quotes don't in any way contradict that.

[Nalaar]

No, just the cut and paste.  I don't like playing games of hide and seek.  Please just quote what you are referring to.

How odd. You could of saved yourself (and others) a fair bit of time by reading the text provided in the OP.



Please read Oxford said before asking me about what he said.  



https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford/">https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-vie ... hn-oxford/">https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford/

[patman post]

I agree that once more the news and media in general are on a feeding frenzy like no other. It''s a gift of fear, drama, anger, anxiety, love stories, despair, worry, victims and heroes. There are investigation opportunities galore coupled with scare mongering fodder sufficient to keep news hounds occupied and in a constant state of alert for the foreseeable future. So what are you saying about balance? What balance would you inject bearing in mind that careers are being made and lost before our eyes?

Frankly, with a large proportion of the population seeming to consist of dimwits, rebellious pushers of envelopes, and (currently) the terminally stupid, it's a wonder the authorities see any point in advising/instructing anyone what to do:

Mobile phone masts have been torched amid theories linking coronavirus to 5G, despite ministers saying there is no credible evidence to back them.

Masts were set alight in Sparkhill, Birmingham, on Thursday and Melling, Merseyside, on Friday.

Trade body Mobile UK said false rumours and theories linking 5G and coronavirus were "concerning".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52164358">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52164358

With local community loudmouths advocating disobeying the stay at home instructions, passed-over personalities openly querying official advice, and others criticising ambulance, hospital and nursing staff, is it really that difficult to understand why restrictions were not brought in earlier...?

[Scott777]

Yes.

Did you read the link provided in the topics first post?

No, just the cut and paste.  I don't like playing games of hide and seek.  Please just quote what you are referring to.

[Scott777]

I think the Tory government now realises how serious the situation is but is playing catch-up because of slow reaction in the past. As is abundantly clear, covid-19 affects anyone including prime ministers and princes.



As I said on another thread, people who play down the seriousness of covid-19 should be aware of the old WW2 phrase: "Dangerous talk costs lives".



Underplaying the seriousness of a situation risks lives far more than overplaying the seriousness.

It's interesting to note how many 'famous' people have had it, and the consequences.  I can think of Tom Hanks (63), Charlie (71), BoJo (55).  None of them have been seriously ill.  Anyone who can add to that list?  It seems funny that all the people who we actually know about with Covid-19 are rather well, almost as if that's the norm.   :shrg:



So, Mr, Duck, did we downplay climate change?  Leaving the EU and the whole economic shock?  Are they wreaking havoc now?

[Scott777]

Oh dear you are getting cynical in this pandemic!  

I'm always cynical   :shock:  , although I prefer the word realistic.  

[patman post]

Professor John Sydney Oxford (born 6 March 1942) is an English

virologist, Professor of Queen Mary, University of London. He is a

leading expert on influenza, including bird flu and the 1918 Spanish

Influenza, and HIV/AIDS." (Wiki):



"Personally, I would say the best advice is to spend less time watching

TV news which is sensational and not very good. Personally, I view this

Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. In this case

we have had 8000 deaths this last year in the 'at risk' groups viz over

65% people with heart disease etc. I do not feel this current Covid will

exceed this number. We are suffering from a media epidemic!" -



https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford/">//%20https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford/%20%20

Interesting. But why should we give any more weight to a PR consultancy's newsletter for which it's engaged the joint founder of a medical communications company — whose daughter, co-founder of Oxford Media + Medicine, is also a newspaper journalist and television producer who makes news and current affairs programmes.

http://www.oxfordmedicine.co/about.php">http://www.oxfordmedicine.co/about.php



Oxford may be correct but, personally, I pay greater attention to the advice distilled from a wider coterie of specialists currently absorbing the latest data and briefing the government...

[papasmurf]

Honestly, you should be able to explain how YOU reach your conclusions.  Did he say "must"?

I don't need to explain anything, that is what experts and past experience are for:-



https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/herd-immunity">https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/herd-immunity

[Nalaar]

Did he say "must".  And why?

Yes.

Did you read the link provided in the topics first post?

[T00ts]

I wouldn't put it past the guv to not try as hard as they could.  I'm sure they are quite enjoying the prospect of running out of money, with a reason to blame for it, the NHS going down, and corporations making a profit.  Who knows?

Oh dear you are getting cynical in this pandemic!  

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

I think the Tory government now realises how serious the situation is but is playing catch-up because of slow reaction in the past. As is abundantly clear, covid-19 affects anyone including prime ministers and princes.



As I said on another thread, people who play down the seriousness of covid-19 should be aware of the old WW2 phrase: "Dangerous talk costs lives".



Underplaying the seriousness of a situation risks lives far more than overplaying the seriousness.