Silvaire wrote:
ny kind of authoritarian government (the chillingly named “new normal”), which in my estimation never did have any positive effect anyway based on comparison with other areas.
Silvaire wrote:
the need for any kind of authoritarian government (the chillingly named “new normal”), which in my estimation never did have any positive effect anyway based on comparison with other areas.
I concur.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Quite a lot of rags publish absolutely no content of any form of quality anymore, let alone factual news but only focus on outsell the competition by going more lurid and by leaving professional research and responsibility behind in favour of clickbait.
Maybe the fear mongering coming out of the NIH and the CDC which is magnified and amplified by the press could be toned down a bit. Perhaps if these govt agencies where brought back to a scientific standard we would all benefit. But once COVID had been politicized as it has then the pandemic took on a life of its own.
One of the other members wrote that countries where malaria is endemic and people take medication for it, the incidence of COVID deaths are very low. It cant be because their healthcare system-is so good. Can you imagine if these medications were allowed to be used early in the disease process?
One of the other members wrote that countries where malaria is endemic and people take medication for it, the incidence of COVID deaths are very low. It cant be because their healthcare system-is so good. Can you imagine if these medications were allowed to be used early in the disease process?
Easily disproved by the sky-high level of Covid fatalities in say Manaus where malaria is endemic.
AFAICT the argument that the mortality is way under 1% is predicated on the following
The 1st one is certainly true but only to a small extent – of the order of 5-10%. The number of deaths cannot be denied. What can always be argued is how many would have died if nothing had been done, but few would support such an experiment, looking at some 3rd World experiences.
The 2nd one depends on how old you are 
It is true that a lot of people of say 85 are pretty tired of life, having been living in pain for years and kept going by a long list of medications and other assistance, but lots of others are having a good quality life and are definitely not ready to pop their clogs. And politically and humanely you cannot just kill them off; one of the measures of a civilised society is how it looks after the old and the sick.
The queue for all the other medical treatments is tragic and is one facet of the widespread mismanagement of the crisis in the early days. After the 1st wave, the realisation was reached that CV19 patients have no greater right to life than the others, and provided the hospitals were running below capacity (which was achieved with the lockdowns etc) then those people could be treated, and they are being treated. That BBC report yesterday is typical news media space-filler and is old news. The issue is made worse by a general dis-engagement with one’s health and by the “NHS must be free” attitude in the UK where people will wait for a year to get free treatment – even when in constant pain – when they could have had it done privately; the private hospitals never stopped working. For example I have a routine periodic blood test and when the 1st wave came all these were just stupidly cancelled. I had it done in a private hospital; the “special company executive health test package” (yawn) cost £400. Probably 99% of people would not have paid that, but the vast majority could have.
Cobalt wrote:
Which is the height of idiocy, and exemplifies the inability of bureaucrats to accept a small risk of action to mitigate a much larger risk of inaction.
Norway has had a negative development of death rate through this pandemic, so access death due to a vaccine, is very unacceptable, and will only increase the death rate. In reality, the larger risk is already mitigated, better than any vaccine could have done. Of course, the current situation cannot continue, at some point things have to normalize, but I really don’t see that alone as a reason to use “any means possible”.
Peter wrote:
AFAICT the argument that the mortality is way under 1% is predicated on the followingmost of the people who die with CV19 stated on their death certificate have actually died of something else
people living past their actuarial life expectancy (say 85) should just die and not inconvenience the rest of us
I was commenting on the statement you made where the mortality if you catch COVID is 1% (for everyone) which is untrue. The chance of dying of COVID if you are a healthy young individual (below 65) is close to zero (statistically). Since all the BS measures implemented ‘’too keep us safe’’ are focussed on the 1% mortality number which keeps getting thrown around it’s important we set the record straight with facts. Yes, if you are over 80, you have a chance of dying WITH COVID.
The reality is the health system is sponsored to report as many people dying as being reported as having died of COVID. As an example anyone reported in the US as COVID – the hospital (care facility, elderly home etc.) benefits from 20% increase under the Covid relief act paid through medicare. The situation in Europe is worse.
Peter wrote:
The queue for all the other medical treatments is tragic and is one facet of the widespread mismanagement of the crisis in the early days. After the 1st wave, the realisation was reached that CV19 patients have no greater right to life than the others, and provided the hospitals were running below capacity (which was achieved with the lockdowns etc) then those people could be treated, and they are being treated. That BBC report yesterday is typical news media space-filler and is old news. The issue is made worse by a general dis-engagement with one’s health and by the “NHS must be free” attitude in the UK where people will wait for a year to get free treatment – even when in constant pain – when they could have had it done privately; the private hospitals never stopped working. For example I have a routine periodic blood test and when the 1st wave came all these were just stupidly cancelled. I had it done in a private hospital; the “special company executive health test package” (yawn) cost £400. Probably 99% of people would not have paid that, but the vast majority could have.
Sadly even this could have been avoided. We’ve touched on the cost/benefit with the UK making the choice of paying 3Bio for non-existing vaccines which paid off massively while the EU leaders (internationally, I still hear no-one complaining here about the lack of vaccines but that is another unfortunate story) are left with omelettes and omelettes of egg on their face. In the UK the NHS decided to book out capacity in the private hospitals you mentioned but 2/3 of that capacity remained unused. The fact hospitals were over run is simply not true and yet another very convenient lie to keep the media in line and singing from the ‘’stay at home, protect the NHS’’ sheet.
As I have said many times the 1% and so called BS methodology is just myth and populist social media chat.
The reason for the response in most sophisticated democracies is the politicians were not prepared to allow the health services to become overwhelmed. We have seen a few countries test the limits and as the inevitable is approached the lock downs and restrictions have followed with vigour. They follow for one reason and one reason alone. If you allow the virus to spread unchecked the health services cant cope with the numbers. People will die on trollies, and in their beds at home and yes this will include some younger people and some otherwise very healthy people. Others will die of non Covid disease because the health services have failed.
This is the main reason for the response and the chat that the death rate is .x % and we have over reacted is nonesense.
Even if you would argue the consequence was acceptable and better, no political party would have survived in a sophisticated democracy, so any other course was not an option. If Borris had allowed our NHS to collapse through lesser measures he would have been out.
So we can debate the detail of the response, but any response that allowed the health services to be overwhelmed was doomed, politically, certainly, but I would also argue morally.
Peter wrote:
most of the people who die with CV19 stated on their death certificate have actually died of something else
The number of those is about 10%, according to UK Govt 125k deaths 28 days after positive CV19 test and 140k deaths with CV19 on their death certificate, of course some may argue that dying in next weeks with positive CV19 test and oxygen mak is not a CV19 death but a normal pneumonia…
It’s like NTSB GA accidents, he crashed because “he exceeded max AoA” not “pulled to stretch his glide”
Nobody has ever suggested CV19 would kill 1% of the population uniformly. Of course it is concentrated at the upper end, with obesity being the main single factor lower down.
The statisticians point to the largest number of deaths from Covid 19 being in the over 80’s and a large percentage of those live in care homes.
I can understand why that could have happened in the “1st wave” no-one really knew what they were doing.
In the “2nd and 3rd waves” care homes were much better prepared. The residents were kept isolated not just from the world outside but any sign of a positive test amongst staff or other residents meant that residents were basically isolated from everyone. Any contact with staff is with someone who has been tested, I think its 3 times a week and who wears PPE which they put on when entering the care home and dispose of when leaving.
For months no one else has been allowed the enter the homes.
So my question to you number crunchers is why given what you write, the over 80’s in care homes are still the most likely to die of Covid19?
Incidentally I could ask a similar question about those restaurants which have spent huge sums of money to ensure customers are isolated and staff are both protected and tested.
