For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 243
  • 244
  • 245
  • 246
  • 247
  • 582
#1853701
@eltonioni
It might feel unfair to those groups watching everyone else going to the pub while they stay indoors waiting for the next free Waitrose delivery, but life is unfair sometimes, and not half as unfair as a needless death. The upside is that the rest of the population would have got on with something that resembled normality with little to no effect on the NHS or the nation's finances


Isn’t that what they tried in Sweden? :roll:

Much of that hypothesis is hopelessly naive.
JAFO liked this
#1853717
@A4 Pacific No.

Ah, you want more than one word? Well, for instance, Sweden screwed up their care homes just like we did because they didn't employ properly protective measures for the elderly and vulnerable either. To their credit, they did let society go on more than we did and their health outcomes are pretty much the same as ours without having one of the strictest lockdowns on the planet. You only have to look at national lockdown stringency plotted against deaths to realise that lockdowns didn't work.

What would probably have worked very well is properly quarantining the elderly and vulnerable. But, since we don't have data for that I'd be very interested to hear thoughts on why that isn't viable when compared to shutting down the planet.

I really don't think it's me being naive here.
#1853729
I really don't think it's me being naive here.


I said the hypothesis was hopelessly naive.

Which countries have followed your recommended strategy of allowing the virus to sweep across nations totally unchecked? :?:

AFAIA there is ‘no data’ for your alternative because nobody has been stupid enough to try it. Though Sweden had a go, before ‘adjusting’ their approach.

Last time I checked, which I accept is not recently, the economies that have survived the best, are those in which lockdowns came early and hard. This was never a choice between the economy or the virus. Economies are massively impacted by the virus alone!

Lockdowns most definitely DO work. (I accept the later ‘mockdowns’ have only a marginal effect) You just think the ‘price’ is too high. You are entitled to your opinion, which you voice prolifically on this matter.

Yet you accept the ‘price’ of your own preferred alternative cannot be quantified.

It’s hardly the most persuasive argument I’ve ever heard.
johnm, JAFO liked this
#1853735
A4 Pacific wrote:
I really don't think it's me being naive here.


I said the hypothesis was hopelessly naive.

Which countries have followed your recommended strategy of allowing the virus to sweep across nations totally unchecked? :?:

AFAIA there is ‘no data’ for your alternative because nobody has been stupid enough to try it. Though Sweden had a go, before ‘adjusting’ their approach.

Last time I checked, which I accept is not recently, the economies that have survived the best, are those in which lockdowns came early and hard. This was never a choice between the economy or the virus. Economies are massively impacted by the virus alone!

Lockdowns most definitely DO work. (I accept the later ‘mockdowns’ have only a marginal effect) You just think the ‘price’ is too high. You are entitled to your opinion, which you voice prolifically on this matter.

Yet you accept the ‘price’ of your own preferred alternative cannot be quantified.

It’s hardly the most persuasive argument I’ve ever heard.



I didn't say that, perhaps you misunderstood. I said (and always have) we should quarantine and protect the elderly and vulnerable.

That actually goes much further than any country has actually done, preferring instead to follow the utterly disastrous route of oppression chosen by the Communist Party of China.

Anyone who really does think that national lockdowns work, just have a look at Oxford's stringency index and they might change their mind in face of data rather than 'common sense'. Or for an intra-national comparison, they could just compare California (massive lockdown, loads of deaths) to Florida (little if any lockdown, few deaths)

Happy to discuss the actual data rather than opinions on what seems obvious. :thumleft:
flybymike liked this
#1853737
eltonioni wrote:@A4 Pacific No.


What would probably have worked very well is properly quarantining the elderly and vulnerable. But, since we don't have data for that I'd be very interested to hear thoughts on why that isn't viable when compared to shutting down the planet.

I really don't think it's me being naive here.



A little more detail on what would count as “properly quarantining “ would be helpful, given what was known back in March 2020 and the resources available
#1853739
Jim Jones wrote:
eltonioni wrote:@A4 Pacific No.


What would probably have worked very well is properly quarantining the elderly and vulnerable. But, since we don't have data for that I'd be very interested to hear thoughts on why that isn't viable when compared to shutting down the planet.

I really don't think it's me being naive here.



A little more detail on what would count as “properly quarantining “ would be helpful, given what was known back in March 2020 and the resources available

I refer the hon gent to an earlier post of mine
Nuance in discussion gets lost over multiple posts but I've been consistent. I'm not against stoping the virus from spreading, I'm against locking down all society. I am in favour of properly shielding the vulnerable and letting everyone else get back to what passes as normal. If "properly shielding" means filling five star hotels with the over 70's and giving them daily spa treatments and slap up Palm Court tea dances in their luxury prison then that works for me. Even if the Swinging Sixties makes a temporary return at least we won't have much of a baby boom to worry about. :) The obese under 70's could stay at home with Joe Wickes videos and a daily Waitrose healthy options delivery...etc.

Form an orderly queue :)
#1853743
johnm wrote:Does this mean that @Flyingfemme finally gets to go home ?

I actually got there 3 weeks ago when they cut it to a test "on arrival" and freedom on a negative result. Only for residents, mind. Packed my personal "stuff" into a van and hitailed it straight back. Just in case they changed their minds again. :roll:
#1853759
Looks like a European Court has told the EU to sling their hook with regards to their claim against Astra Zeneca. Good Call.

AstraZeneca today welcomed the ruling by the Court of First Instance in Brussels. The European Commission had requested 120 million vaccine doses cumulatively by the end of June 2021, and a total of 300 million doses by the end of September 2021. The judge ordered delivery of 80.2 million doses by 27 September 2021. To date, the Company has supplied more than 70 million doses to the European Union and will substantially exceed 80.2 million doses by the end of June 2021. All other measures sought by the European Commission have been dismissed, and in particular the Court found that the European Commission has no exclusivity or right of priority over all other contracting parties.

The judgement also acknowledged that the difficulties experienced by AstraZeneca in this unprecedented situation had a substantial impact on the delay. AstraZeneca now looks forward to renewed collaboration with the European Commission to help combat the pandemic in Europe. The Company remains committed to broad and equitable distribution of the vaccine as laid out in the Advanced Purchase Agreement of August 2020.


https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... urope.html
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853773
eltonioni wrote:The thing is, if instead of a pointless and ineffective lock down of the entire nation back in March last year we had quarantined the elderly and vulnerable we would not have had the death toll we've seen.


How do you work that one out? We *DID* quarantine the elderly and vulnerable. This is why we *only* have 150,000 deaths, rather than the 800,0000+ we would have had otherwise.

eltonioni wrote:and not half as unfair as a needless death.


Well, quite.

eltonioni wrote:The upside is that the rest of the population would have got on with something that resembled normality with little to no effect on the NHS


That just isn't true. Where do you start? The vast majority of people in hospital wards are or were in their 50s, all medical staff will tell you that. A good number are in their 40s. That's because they either take longer to die than those who are older or they have more of a chance of eventually making a recovery. Either way they spend a lot more time in hospital than those who are either older or younger.

Plus if you let the virus run rampant in the (say) under 40s while quarantining the over 40s, the virus *will* leak into the rest of the population - again, 150,000 deaths *with* people isolating as it is. And if huge numbers of under 50s or under 40s have it, you can bet even though a smaller percentage will end up in hospital, in terms of absolute numbers, it'll still be large.

A4 Pacific wrote:Last time I checked, which I accept is not recently, the economies that have survived the best, are those in which lockdowns came early and hard. This was never a choice between the economy or the virus. Economies are massively impacted by the virus alone!


As an island nation we were ideally placed to do the same. Alas we didn't.

eltonioni wrote:That actually goes much further than any country has actually done, preferring instead to follow the utterly disastrous route of oppression chosen by the Communist Party of China.


You've been smoking the American right wing propaganda baccy again, haven't you? ;-)
JAFO liked this
  • 1
  • 243
  • 244
  • 245
  • 246
  • 247
  • 582