"We are suffering from a media epidemic"

[Javert]

At the top of page 9 Javert. You say "according to the scientists, it's not a risk (that half a million will die), it's a virtual certainty" That's why I asked you the question? Where is the factual evidence that "half a million" will/would have died? Not the estimates. Not some model. There were those for SARs etc too, and millions did not die. Are you getting this yet?

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.

[papasmurf]

 The supply chain can barely sustain 3 weeks of lockdown, let alone 3 months.

An indictation of things to come next year

[DeppityDawg]

The not so subtle difference between fact and hype, is to my belief, that of not so much a public health crisis, but of a public health service crisis Certainly for the UK

The NHS is more than a National Health Service, it is the very symbol of the establishments legitimacy. If the NHS should crumble under the weight, so does that legitimacy. It is themselves and the status quo, first and foremost, that the authorities are protecting.

Yeah, I get that Sampanski. Something else to bear in mind also. I'm still working. We are supply chain and deemed an essential service. Our engines and equipment power all sorts of applications from standby generators, water pumps, cold store refrigerators, trucks, plant and heat exchangers. Our customers range from the private sector, to supermarkets like Asda and Tesco, through to the utilities, local authorities and the NHS.



We've been working flat out for the past 3 weeks. But now we are starting experience serious supply problems ourselves because we cannot get parts, materials and consumables. They are starting to dry up because they are either not coming into the country or because the plants making them are at a standstill. We are starting to furlough people ourselves now. I know other businesses are starting to get the same problems. It's only a matter of time before what are deemed "essential services" cannot function because they cannot get materials. The supply chain can barely sustain 3 weeks of lockdown, let alone 3 months.

[T00ts]

But what a way to go DD. Bets the Chinese flu anytime    

You are ALL impossible!!!  :roll:

[Borchester]

You don't "appear" sexist mate. You are! I think the girls should put those little netball skirts on and do a cheerleading ra ra routine for the boys! Mind you, half of em would probably have a heart attack ::  ::  ::

But what a way to go DD. Beats the Chinese flu anytime    

[Barry]

There are lots of people with Covid-19 who have tested negative who are then going on to die.  We don't have clear transparency on what leeway the person signing the death certificate has to declare the primary cause of death as Covid-19, and we don't know whether the government is putting pressure to keep the death numbers lower - there are people who are dying with Covid-19 where there is a legitimate grey area on what the primary cause of death is.

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.

[Scott777]

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?  

 :dmq:  :shrg:  Where the hell have the cheerleaders gone?

[DeppityDawg]

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?  

You don't "appear" sexist mate. You are! I think the girls should put those little netball skirts on and do a cheerleading ra ra routine for the boys! Mind you, half of em would probably have a heart attack ::  ::  ::

[Scott777]

Putting all that aside, in the end, we will know what was the increase in the overall death rate during these months compared to a normal year.  For example if we did nothing at all, and as predicted about 300k or more people were to die, this would pretty much double the number of deaths in a normal year, which every country is going to notice.



All that said, if you are such a conspiracy theorist that you just dismiss all the numbers as propaganda, it's pretty much impossible to argue against that.

If all the figures come from the same source, it need not be a conspiracy.  It's quite common practice.  I think I heard that Imperial College (or someone connected to them) are the single source.



As for the government, they have chosen to go with Imperial College advice, and seemingly ignore Oxford Uni.  So their choice could mean they are exaggerating it, rather than downplaying it.

[Borchester]

I don't think I could bear 10 million Javerts.   ::

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?  

[DeppityDawg]

Hang on - I haven't said  half a million people are definitely going to die no matter what is done.  I have said that if we did nothing other than issuing some vague comments bout washing hands, and then just carry on as normal, then hundreds of thousands are likely to die both directly as a result from Covid-19, and indirectly when other people with other unrelated serious illnesses can't get into ICU.



Under the current lockdown, if it continues for the amount of time required (to be confirmed based on science), the number of dead will be down around 20,000 or less.



These numbers could change as new data comes in, but I still don't see that as a good cause to say - I'm sure it will all be ok so let's all just go back to normal.



If the lockdown continues as needed, and then "only" 20,000 people die, you are suggesting it will be a big scandal, whereas I am suggesting it will be a big success because several hundred thousand lives will have been saved compared to doing nothing.



Otherwise it's like surviving a car accident whilst wearing a seatbelt, and then claiming that this proves that seatbelts are a waste of money as sure you were in a car accident and you were fine.

At the top of page 9 Javert. You say "according to the scientists, it's not a risk (that half a million will die), it's a virtual certainty" That's why I asked you the question? Where is the factual evidence that "half a million" will/would have died? Not the estimates. Not some model. There were those for SARs etc too, and millions did not die. Are you getting this yet?

[Javert]

And I'm the one who gets accused of conspiracy theories!



Ok, well I'm not an expert on the tests, but how would it affect the total death rate, which we will have tomorrow?

Well it's either that, or the journalists who are supposed to be pointing these things out are thick.  I'll give you it's probably the latter.



There are lots of people with Covid-19 who have tested negative who are then going on to die.  We don't have clear transparency on what leeway the person signing the death certificate has to declare the primary cause of death as Covid-19, and we don't know whether the government is putting pressure to keep the death numbers lower - there are people who are dying with Covid-19 where there is a legitimate grey area on what the primary cause of death is.



It's kind of like if you are a haemophiliac and you die from blood loss after having a minor car accident, was your cause of death haemophilia or an RTC?



Anyway, a GP told me that at the moment, they are not allowed to put "Covid-19" as the primary reason on a sick note unless they have a positive test, even where they are clinically certain the person has Covid-19.  However they are allowed to put Covid-19 on a death certificate even if there is no test, but I don't know what other evidence they need.



Putting all that aside, in the end, we will know what was the increase in the overall death rate during these months compared to a normal year.  For example if we did nothing at all, and as predicted about 300k or more people were to die, this would pretty much double the number of deaths in a normal year, which every country is going to notice.



All that said, if you are such a conspiracy theorist that you just dismiss all the numbers as propaganda, it's pretty much impossible to argue against that.

[Scott777]

Why not  10 million theoretical Javert figures?

I don't think I could bear 10 million Javerts.   ::

[Thomas]

Between ourselves Tommy, the deaths seem to be declining. I won't bet on it because the last time I did Barry had me contributing a chunk of my pension to Battersea Dogs Home Kennomeat  fund, but the next week might well show that we have turned the corner.



It is a bit like being in the army. And here the cack handed analogies will come thick and fast, but when there is nothing to be done something has to be done to keep the troops occupied. So we are running around wearing masks, sealing up the plague victims, whitewashing the barracks, painting the grass green and generally doing our well meaning and ineffectual best to look busy.



What we really need is a tank. Something that will cross No Man's Land and kill the Covid virus. We don't have anything like that right now and probably won't for a few more years by which time we will have found something else to panic over. The EU's application to join the UK perhaps?



 

:-P

[Scott777]

Point b is incorrect - the current test doesn't work after death, and even gives a significant percent of false negatives after the first 6-7 days of having symptoms - I got this info directly from several doctors and consultants working with Covid-19 patients, but I'm sure you know better.



The government doesn't want this publicised because people might start asking, if the test is only 100% accurate in the first 5-7 days of symptoms, why are we telling everyone to stay at home until they are nearly dead, when this means that quite a few Covid-19 patients will test negative.



The other supporting data for this is the figures released last Monday which showed that almost half of the tests done the day before, were retests on the same people that had already been tested once - if the test is 100% reliable, why retest people again?  This is all very clear if you speak to the actual people treating this illness on the front line - no journalists even asked about this which almost makes me think there is some kind of gagging order in place about it.]

And I'm the one who gets accused of conspiracy theories!



Ok, well I'm not an expert on the tests, but how would it affect the total death rate, which we will have tomorrow?