I wonder why they still bother. The plague is out of control anyway and will now ravage unrestricted.
Quarantine has failed to prevent the exponential infections and now things will spiral out of control.
The only thing they could do is lock everything down. But they lack the balls for this. So doom is now only a question of a few sunny days left in our lifes before infection rates will shut down things even without the law to do so.
Mankind has failed it’s only real test in current times. Now the consequences will be apocalyptic. If Greta survives she will have most of what she wanted.
On another note, almost 50% of Iscghl was diagnosed as having had the virus, less than ten people were hospitalised and not a single one died.
So much for apocalypse.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Mankind has failed it’s only real test in current times. Now the consequences will be apocalyptic. If Greta survives she will have most of what she wanted.
Nonsense! And you are badly misrepresenting Greta Thunberg.
On another note, almost 50% of Iscghl was diagnosed as having had the virus, less than ten people were hospitalised and not a single one died.
So much for apocalypse.
Totally disingenuous. The apres ski crowd were mostly young, so most didn’t get it seriously. But they brought it home to their own countries, eventually resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and many more serious illnesses. In a number of countries the entire initial outbreak was traced to skiers returning from the Alps.
We are now seeing a replay, but this time it isn’t due to now knowing. It is due to many not giving a damn and demanding their rights to go down the pub, etc. The north of the UK is getting gradually locked down.
Allow me to be more precise. 50% of Ischgl residents. Not the “après ski crowd” scarecrow.
50% of Ischgl residents
Population 1596 – not really meaningful without knowing how many of this miniscule number were being exposed to significant doses. It seems clear that small doses give you an immune response without much more.
On a more amusing topic: best not use Excel 2007 for CV19 data 
The opposition is equally clueless: Jonathan Ashworth, the Labour Party’s shadow health secretary, said. “Why aren’t they using specialist data-based software?”.
What makes that number insignificant from an epidemiologocal perspective? Assuming that contrary to evidence you demonstrate that living in close quarters gives you minimal exposure.
This thread feels a bit like a dumpster fire right now tbh.
How about a thought exercise. We’ve seen Trump get better relatively quickly, although he had fluid in his lungs, “wasn’t feeling great” when he went into the hospital according to his own words, and he’s talking of a “miracle cure” that made him feel better practically overnight. Without speculating on what it was that made him recover (I think there’s a chance that it is the one for which I linked a preprint with primary clinical results here a few months back), would the general availability of such an intravenously administered drug change our approach as a society to the pandemic, or would we want to continue all measures as today until there is also a vaccine?
Mind you, this would still only help if you contract the virus and go into the hospital, but let’s assume it raises the survival rate and lowers the rate of serious complications to that of a normal flu.
We’ve seen Trump get better relatively quickly, although he had fluid in his lungs, “wasn’t feeling great” when he went into the hospital according to his own words, and he’s talking of a “miracle cure” that made him feel better practically overnight. Without speculating on what it was that made him recover (I think there’s a chance that it is the one for which I linked a preprint with primary clinical results here a few months back), would the general availability of such an intravenously administered drug change our approach as a society to the pandemic, or would we want to continue all measures as today until there is also a vaccine?
The question is, how much “better” is he really. Clearly it appears he can perform his functions which means he is out of the bedridden state, but if he is virus free, i.e tests negative and can´t spread it around anymore, is widely contested.
But you are right, this cure, whatever it was, seems to have stopped him from going into severe symthoms. So it is indeed quite interesting what he got, in which quantity and what side effects this develops.
Clearly the quite obvious improvement on treatment of this disease in general has been one of the reasons why a certain non-chalance has taken hold despite most alarming numbers. The question would be, do we rely on this to work for the broad population or is it just a super VIP like POTUS which will get access to experimental stuff like they used on him. As long as we don´t have a treatment which can keep the disease so far in check, that hospitalisation is hardly ever necessary and grave symptoms can be stopped before they develop I don´t see any change in how society should treat it, namely as a potentially deadly disease with a huge infection potential and therefore harm to others around anyone infected.
Rwy20 wrote:
This thread feels a bit like a dumpster fire right now tbh.How about a thought exercise. We’ve seen Trump get better relatively quickly, although he had fluid in his lungs, “wasn’t feeling great” when he went into the hospital according to his own words, and he’s talking of a “miracle cure” that made him feel better practically overnight. Without speculating on what it was that made him recover (I think there’s a chance that it is the one for which I linked a preprint with primary clinical results here a few months back), would the general availability of such an intravenously administered drug change our approach as a society to the pandemic, or would we want to continue all measures as today until there is also a vaccine?
Mind you, this would still only help if you contract the virus and go into the hospital, but let’s assume it raises the survival rate and lowers the rate of serious complications to that of a normal flu.
I think the way we as a society approach the virus should only change if we have a treatment or immunisation which is easy to adminster, with little to no side-effects, and can be adminstered without a long hospital stay. Because one of the main reasons for all the restrictions in place has always been “not to overwhelm the healthcare sector”. Which is quite personal to me because I am a part of that sector and would be personally affected if we got overwhelmed with sick people with Covid…as happened to our colleagues in Italy, Spain or elsewhere. Luckily, we missed out of that so far, and I’d like to keep it that way…
If some antibody cocktail could be easily given to patients like Trump, with a few or ideally a single injection(s), then that would indeed be a major step forward. However, all other antibody based medicine is expensive to manufacture and ridiculously expensive at the point of care, so I highly doubt that we’d be able to afford enough doses for a large part of the population.
