Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Corona / Covid-19 Virus - General Discussion (politics go to the Off Topic / Politics thread)

Defense means a common national military force, and the word ‘provide’ was used with that intent. It has nothing to do with medical care.

I agree that Ronald Reagan was a very good leader for the US people, and he would doubtless have done a good job in promoting people to take care of themselves.

Greetings from Mexico City. Oddly enough we had dinner with two Swiss couples last night, one of them just off the plane from Zurich. Plenty of discussion on this topic, and for me their perspective was interesting as they both work in international banking.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Nov 14:19

cpt_om_sky wrote:

what you seem to “forget or overlook..” is the part of the message where every government in a modern democracy is responsible and committed (required by the constitution) to PROTECT its own people….
“nothing can be done to stop the virus spreading but we will do everything to protect and take care of our people no matter what.”

we cannot “stop” the virus from spreading but we can and must control it (as best as we can) to minimize deaths and sufferings.
thats the whole point.

I was going to say that our fundamental views on the role of government obviously differ, but @Silvaire beat me to it. I can go one further though, we don’t even have a constitution so it’s impossible to argue that the government has any healthcare-related obligations under it.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

And who is exercising tyranny over whom in those countries where we have 60-70% vaccinated and still need to resort to lockdowns is a question of point of view. In Austria, not many people look at their government when talking of tyranny, but of the 30% or so who refuse to be part of the solution instead of the problem.

Indeed, different views. I call it tyranny when a state requires you to carry and present evidence of your own personal healthcare choices in order to go about your daily business. You call it tyranny when other people make different healthcare choices to you.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The days of the chance of stopping the virus were over in March 2020, maybe even earlier.

This is delusional. There was never any such chance. The virus is so contagious and so mild in effect that as soon as it left that lab in Wuhan (by accident or design is in question, but it almost certainly did) an endemic situation was inevitable. We did not know that at the time, but with hindsight it is obvious.

EGLM & EGTN

@LeSving wrote:

Not particularly crazy. Covid, if let loose (no vaccine, no restrictions etc, no hospitals etc) will only kill 2% of the population. Proper hospital care will alone probably save 80-90% of that 2%.

I think the mortality rate is around 1-2% WITH treatment, not without treatment. Care to share your source?

Biggin Hill

Graham wrote:

You call it tyranny when other people make different healthcare choices to you.

They are free to do whatever healthcare choices they choose, however freedom stops where it impacts the freedom or worse, life and limb of others.

For instance: We are free in our choice of health care provider and to some extent the cover we choose. However we are NOT free whether to take out health insurance at all. Because, if you don’t and you fall ill and can’t pay, the taxpayer has to pay for your treatment.

As I understand it, your choice in the UK is inexistent, as everybody automatically is enrolled in the tax payer funded NHS. So this would be government imposed healthcare?

I call it tyranny if a minority of people forces THEIR will onto a majority. Whether that minority be a government, a share of the population or a neighbour in a block of flats who terrorizes others, there is little difference in the principle.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

We don’t know what the mortality rate is without any treatment, vaccination or attempt to reduce spread. This is because there’s no dataset.

What we do know is that any mortality rate quoted can only be the ratio of deaths to known cases. It cannot be deaths to total infections because that number is unknown and generally believed to be much, much higher.

EGLM & EGTN

Mooney_Driver wrote:

As I understand it, your choice in the UK is inexistent, as everybody automatically is enrolled in the tax payer funded NHS. So this would be government imposed healthcare?

It is ‘imposed’ in the sense that provision/entitlement is outwith the control of the individual and there is no option to reclaim the portion of your taxes that go to the NHS in return for renouncing your claim upon it.

However, private healthcare is also widely available – many different options at many different prices. Provision of private healthcare as an employment benefit is a market standard for ‘white collar’ professions.

Nothing is imposed in the sense of procedures being mandated.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

They are free to do whatever healthcare choices they choose, however freedom stops where it impacts the freedom or worse, life and limb of others.

We’ve done this one to death and we clearly disagree. Requiring that an individual undergoes medical procedures in order to attempt to protect other individuals is in no way comparable to the oft-cited ‘restrictions on freedom’ to steal aeroplanes, drive drunk, spray gunfire at random, etc.

Placing limits on individual freedoms in the interests of others is, to my mind, acceptable in really only two situations: (1) where it is almost impossible to argue that any individual has any legitimate business doing that thing (e.g. spraying random gunfire), and (2) where the risk to others is so great, and the harm meted out so obviously excessive, that consensus on that restriction is easy to establish. As an example, in the UK car drivers pass each other head-on within the space of a few feet at closing speeds of up to 120mph – unarguably a dangerous thing – even though the freedom to do so causes approximately 5 (arguably totally unnecessary) deaths per day. We don’t restrict this freedom because we don’t believe the harm caused justifies restricting it. I believe it’s quite an extreme socialist mindset to argue that government should constantly micromanage such risks for you.

If we were dealing with something with a 25-50% mortality rate (see Contagion) then I might feel differently. It’s all a question of balance.

Last Edited by Graham at 23 Nov 15:29
EGLM & EGTN

Graham wrote:

What we do know is that any mortality rate quoted can only be the ratio of deaths to known cases.

Certainly. But we can put some boundaries on the range by now.

For example in the US, UK and Italy, around 200 of 100,000 people died of Covid since the beginning. In Bulgaria, 400 and in Peru, 600.

So assuming Peru has no healthcare whatsoever, and that everyone has been infected, the untreated case fatality rate is 0.6%, and the treated case fatality rate around 0.2% using UK, US and Italy as a “benchmark”. And that includes half a year of vaccinations.

Given that this clearly hasn’t run its course it is safe to say that the 0.2-0.4% implied in @LeSvings assertion is, ahem, on the optimistic side.

Biggin Hill

On the up side, Switzerland has certified Pfizer for the Booster vaccines. I got my date on Saturday…. which is a big relief.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Ted
United Kingdom

The Guardian headline falsely implies that Pascal Soriot claimed something when he clearly didn’t.

I listened to the interview this morning. Soriot simply pointed to an interesting situation and said it was worthy of further study and might have something to do with T-cells. The interviewer repeatedly pressed him to state that the AZ vaccine was making a difference not seen in populations that received largely Pfizer, and to his credit he resolutely refused to do so.

Even their own article doesn’t support the headline, but this is not atypical for the Guardian where speculative headlines are the norm. The usual format, followed here, is (1) simply untrue statement or excessive implication in headline, (2) weasel-word linking in first paragraph to establish some sort of tenuous link between headline and reality, much use of modal auxiliary verbs such as could, might, and may, (3) provide the actual quote and hope the reader doesn’t notice that it doesn’t actually support the headline.

EGLM & EGTN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top