Unevidenced testing of our children
#21
(03-02-2021, 08:17 PM)baggy1 Wrote: I agree with that Rich, I’d imagine that with vaccines and some herd immunity that it will retreat to the normal respiratory season. Problem is we can’t say that yet and will need another 12 months at least to be able to make that judgment.
we need 79 percent of  population to be immune to achive  herd emunity and that will not happen at the current rate of vaccination till november
Reply
#22
(03-02-2021, 08:19 PM)keef Wrote:
(03-02-2021, 07:22 PM)woodman Wrote: And for those that think just sticking a swab up the nose twice a week is acceptable when there's absolutely no evidenced benefit just shows how far gone society in this country has gone. A country where the govt can make you do things with absolutely no proven benefits at all.
I  think it is  small price to pay for  saving the lives of vulnerable people
far better than sticking bulshit into your kids brains as you clearly have  been doing since they were born

Billy believed that vulnerable people should hide away and no concessions made to them so everyone else can go back to normal. He’s said it consistently for nearly six months, and before he says anything there are thousands of actual vulnerable children who can’t have the vaccine currently. I wonder if Woody would agree?
Reply
#23
Firstly I'm woodman. Secondly I'm glad I'm teaching my family proper values unlike many on here.
Mass hysteria on here if only we had Sweden's level of excess death. A distant dream.

Any vulnerable group should be treated appropriately.

My view as I've said consistently on here in my short time on the stasiboard is that any NPIs should be undertaken in light of the total cost and benefits to all public health. Simple. They use QALY for that in every other case. Not here not now. This forum doesnt care about that or the wellbeing and future of our children. I find that bizarre that you cant have a conversation about total net wellbeing of the public without being labelled a heretic whilst you all wank.yourselves into a frenzy about a single virus.
Reply
#24
(03-02-2021, 08:42 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(03-02-2021, 08:19 PM)keef Wrote:
(03-02-2021, 07:22 PM)woodman Wrote: And for those that think just sticking a swab up the nose twice a week is acceptable when there's absolutely no evidenced benefit just shows how far gone society in this country has gone. A country where the govt can make you do things with absolutely no proven benefits at all.
I  think it is  small price to pay for  saving the lives of vulnerable people
far better than sticking bulshit into your kids brains as you clearly have  been doing since they were born

Billy believed that vulnerable people should hide away and no concessions made to them so everyone else can go back to normal. He’s said it consistently for nearly six months, and before he says anything there are thousands of actual vulnerable children who can’t have the vaccine currently. I wonder if Woody would agree?
he is worried about foreigen objects that are put in his childrens bodies and forgets about the shit he puts into  there  minds  they really do not have mutch hope with a dad like that do they

(03-02-2021, 08:57 PM)woodman Wrote: Firstly I'm woodman. Secondly I'm glad I'm teaching my family proper values unlike many on here.
Mass hysteria on here if only we had Sweden's level of excess death. A distant dream.

Any vulnerable group should be treated appropriately.

My view as I've said consistently on here in my short time on the stasiboard is that  any NPIs should be undertaken in light of the total cost and benefits to all public health. Simple. They use QALY for that in every other case. Not here not now. This forum doesnt care about that or the wellbeing and future of our children. I find that bizarre that you cant have a conversation about total net wellbeing of the public without being labelled a heretic whilst you all wank.yourselves into a frenzy about a single virus.
Said trump Big Grin
Reply
#25
(03-02-2021, 08:57 PM)woodman Wrote: Firstly I'm woodman. Secondly I'm glad I'm teaching my family proper values unlike many on here.
Mass hysteria on here if only we had Sweden's level of excess death. A distant dream.

Any vulnerable group should be treated appropriately.

My view as I've said consistently on here in my short time on the stasiboard is that  any NPIs should be undertaken in light of the total cost and benefits to all public health. Simple. They use QALY for that in every other case. Not here not now. This forum doesnt care about that or the wellbeing and future of our children. I find that bizarre that you cant have a conversation about total net wellbeing of the public without being labelled a heretic whilst you all wank.yourselves into a frenzy about a single virus.

Yes Billy of course you are.

So how would you treat the vulnerable groups? You seem vague on that, taking into account there are 16M over 60s in the UK, that's just short of 25% of the population. If you add to that the people that would need to care for them then it raises the number again. And you don't consider another point in that a lot of these people live with other generations in their homes, do those people have to shield as well, or do the vulnerable have to lock themselves away even further in their own homes.

You talk about QALYs which is very useful when you are talking about making choices between small numbers for cost / resource reasons, but when you are talking about 100s of thousands then you are not using QALYs for their intended purpose.

I can also show you that when we have released lockdown the number of cases rises resulting in hospitalisations and then deaths. Plus the extra stress put on the NHS means that normal procedures get cancelled. Opening up means that there will be less medical resource for those that need it, not just short term but long term as well with the damage it will do to staffing levels and funding. 

We have had over 110k more deaths than normal in less than a year due to this virus, without lockdowns and restrictions that would have been multiple times that number die.

And yet you still have no solution, no prospectus of what to do, no roadmap out of it.
Reply
#26
(03-02-2021, 08:57 PM)woodman Wrote: Firstly I'm woodman. Secondly I'm glad I'm teaching my family proper values unlike many on here.
Mass hysteria on here if only we had Sweden's level of excess death. A distant dream.

Any vulnerable group should be treated appropriately. What does that actually mean? Please include their families and carers in your reply

My view as I've said consistently on here in my short time on the stasiboard is that  any NPIs should be undertaken in light of the total cost and benefits to all public health. Simple. They use QALY for that in every other case. Not here not now. This forum doesnt care about that or the wellbeing and future of our children. I find that bizarre that you cant have a conversation about total net wellbeing of the public without being labelled a heretic whilst you all wank.yourselves into a frenzy about a single virus.
Reply
#27
Not sure who this Billy is but I'd like to meet him - seems to have lots of people on here aerated for some reason.

I've said it a number of times a focussed protection strategy. Not easy not simple but possible. So possible in fact that the “UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011,” outlined such an approach.

It also took a dismissive view of lockdowns. Let me quote: it will “not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.”

I'm already hearing the cries that it's Covid not Influenza and you'd be right but hang on that research stated that local planners should “aim to cope with a population mortality rate of up to 210,000—315,000 additional deaths, possibly over as little as a 15-week period.” So they planned for a catastrophic pandemic with double/triple the number of deaths we have now.

But hold on I hear you cry: they're different viruses, different transmissability and you'd be right. But as you'll know being an expert on the matter the more transmissable a virus the less effective quarantine measures are (for all the obvious reasons). The minor counter to that of course - I'm doing your work for you - is that it seems Covid has a slightly longer incubation period than influenza and thus quarantine of potentially infected individuals may well work. So a focussed protection strategy with a working tracing system would offer the best of both worlds.

Hence why in Feb 2020 the govt was using it's own strategy. In March Whitty was in front of MPs said: "one of the bits of advice we will give when this starts to run is for people who are older or have pre-existing health conditions to have some degree of isolation.” and just before you state he didn't understand it's transmissability or lethality well he did: “we are all convinced that the upper end of the mortality rate overall, in terms of people infected, is one percent.” That figure of 1% higher than what it actually is. He also stated that the plan was based on an infection rate of 80% of the total population. so an upper bound of 500K deaths. These are the experts that you've been quoting I believe.

Of course that all got abandoned when Ferguson's model came out and that was after Fanelli's survey of focussed protection mitigations was on balance supported by over 100 experts in their field - which Ferguson is not. So in summary: the govt had a plan, a plan that fitted the viruses actual transmissability and lethality and then changed it to a plan based on no evidence other than Wuhan locked down.

And then to top it all off they postponed the impact of the virus May-Oct by not allowing us to gain healthy community immunity. They stopped us gaining community immunity and the healthy population acquiring the virus and beating it. Thus the majority of the transmissability was postponed and has caused deaths at the time we can least cope with them.

But all this is irrelevant because you are locked into the view: "without lockdowns and restrictions that would have been multiple times that number die.". You say that with zero evidence presented and none available because on a global review of lockdown stringency/measures/approaches there is no correlation between lockdown mitigations and deaths. If you do have the evidence present it.

What I do know is that it's the biggest economic hit in 300 years, millions upon millions of missed medical appointments, thousands upon thousands less cancer diagnoses and cardiac treatements, thousands more deaths at home than usual, the education of millions of kids stunted, thousands and thousands in poverty or at the lower end of the income scale disadvantaged for potentially a lifetime, kids and adults mental health damaged, small and local business killed in favour of your tech giants.

Maybe there is hyperbole here but if you're going to advocate lockdowns and present a case for why they work then I assume you've come out with the assumption that on balance it's a net benefit. If you've done that then let's see the workings instead of the usual straight line from deaths to lockdowns being good. Causality does not lead to correlation and vice versa.
Reply
#28
Next slide please .
Reply
#29
So in summary, you seem to think that over quarter of a million deaths from influenza would have been acceptable in a 15 week period and that we would have been able to cope with that? 

You also miss one massive point in that we actually have some inbuilt immunity to influenza along with existing medicines / vaccines, we had none of that for covid which means that the 210-315k figure could be multiplied many times. Then you would have had the impact on the NHS staff with such a sudden and prolonged exposure to this new virus, there were already a high level of deaths for front line staff - further exposure on the scale you talk about would have resulted in many more deaths which would lead to reduced capacity going forward to deal with any other treatments.

Your logic around transmissibility and lockdown is bizarre, reducing the opportunity to transmit is what lockdown has meant. No matter how much more it is transmissible it will never be able to transmit through walls. And then you talk about a working tracing system aligned with a focussed protection strategy - 1stly we don't have a working tracing system and secondly it is because people like yourself have been saying 'let's get back to normal' that people have ignored any focussed protection. I will ask again, how do you intend to have focussed protection for a quarter of the UKs population? Words are wind, back them up with how.

And yes the govt were starting by using their own strategy and very quickly found out that this isn't influenza and 315,000 would have been the low end of where we were heading. We had 45k excess deaths in April whilst stopping transmission with a real lockdown. It accelerated from 1k to 6k to 11k in 3 weeks and there is nothing to say that it wouldn't have continued to rise exponentially without the lockdown, which by the way you have already said you agreed with.

Another massive point you seem to be ignoring is that immunity only appears to be lasting a few months, again I'll repeat what I said earlier, comparison to a virus that we have medicines and pre-existing immunity is simple bonkers.

And you logic is that we can't prove there would have been more deaths, it seems that you need evidence of actual deaths instead of the logic that shows cases rising, followed by hospitalisations rising, followed by excess deaths rising which seem to reverse when we have lockdowns put in place. I've literally shown the numbers in hospital rising since september and them falling after lockdown on this bored on a weekly basis.

And like you we're all pissed off with lockdowns, the economic hit, the damage to the economy and the big recovery that will be needed but as we're nearly there with the vaccine rollout it seems bizarre that you are against vaccinations and testing of children. In fact you appear to be against everything part from 'just open up' and 'lock up the vulnerable'.

And as ever the question of 'show us the workings' comes out when no-one knows what will cost more and ironically you can't give any workings for your calculations that you are so certain will be better. 

Words are wind mate and you are blowing a fucking gale.
Reply
#30
(03-03-2021, 04:22 PM)The liquidator Wrote: Next slide please .

Big Grin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}