• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

Grays_1890 said:
Mark my words Germany will get a spike and go back into a lockdown within two months be it partial or full down
Click to expand...
It will interesting and will help the way towards how effective masks are and what parameters are possible to "live alongside" CVD 19.

If they do regress, they will probably have to find a way to increase wage support - it's 60% currently in Germany.
 
scaramanga said:
Quite. Any individual loss is a tragedy but the societal cost is minimal.
Click to expand...

Yeh any loss is terrible but there has to be an acceptance that there will be death and once there is you weigh up what’s the biggest loss not now but in the overall including as you say societal loss.

Now we are in the infinite circle where people are always saying “could have done better” which is an unrealistic path to tread because by the nature of numbers and the term “could have done better” there is always room for improvement even for Germany. The issue with the reactionary nature is it takes the human nature element out of any discussion or reality.
 
Robspur12 said:
I don’t get this. You cannot establish herd immunity unless you are willing to sacrifice a lot of lives. So preventing people from becoming infected is better. Track the virus, isolate those infected and have varying degrees of locking down. It’s basic public health. No country has starved the virus 400% but many have kept both the infection rate and death rate much lower.
Click to expand...
What bit don't you get?

The difference is the deaths in theory are front loaded. With no cure, vaccine or anti virals, the people you've shielded are going to be in that state for a very long time. The virus is waiting for them, it doesn't mind which month it gets you, we have nothing to stand in its way.

The number of deaths spooks people and that can lead to a blind spot (and I understand why). The German or SKorea approach may well end up the better, but the hindsight goggles need to be left off for a good 18 months... we're miles away, on all fronts, to knowing the fall out from this.

Just too add. If everyone receives a good level of treatment if infected (as it appears they have ie 'not overwhelmed') then unnecessary deaths in that sense look like being avoided. The PPE (lack of) for those providing that care is a balls-up.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Because the govt does not have the right to impinge on our privacy in that way.

It's really easy to keep people safe if nobody has any privacy but that's not the deal we have with the govt. Remember when ID cards were supposed to stop both terrorism and illegal immigration in one go? We didn't want them.

Once we accept individual tracking for one safety issue then we've lost the privacy Vs safety argument for good. The govt doesn't give back powers, once they have them they have them forever. In a few years' time the govt will claim that there's a terrorist threat somewhere and we can foil it if we'll only just enable that app again for a few weeks, etc. We won't have any reasonable argument not to because we've already accepted that safety us more important than our privacy.

Apple and Google can track you if you don't care to stop them - that's a trade off I allow at times on the basis that so far, they've heavily resisted the attempts of police forces to snoop. If they start relaxing that then I'll install a custom OS that's built around privacy - there's plenty out there.
Click to expand...

I have similar concerns as a principle. On balance, I most likely will use the app because if I should contract the virus and be asymptomatic then at least anyone with whom I will have come into contact can be made aware and protect themselves and others.

But first I want to understand more about security, how the data will be stored, how long for, how it will be used, who will have access to it etc. Is there going to be legislation to set parameters around how government can collect, store and use the data - and time limitations when they will stop, even if an app is still installed?

Thousands of people need to be trained up as tracers, going out and talking to people who have been identified as being in contact (whatever that exactly means) with an infected person. What checks and safeguards will be in place?

This is where I expect Labour to be asking questions. I can see the difficulty as it will be too easy for them to be accused of being obstructive, not helping the government lift the lock-down etc., but it is important that the government is subject to very high scrutiny over this. A lot more information is needed imo.
 
Robspur12 said:
It will certainly be difficult with the numbers now infected. But it has to be part of a general prevention strategy. We have legislation to ensure it is enforced. Alongside that we also need the antibody test so we can determine who has been exposed to enable them to go to work.
Click to expand...
I posted somewhere earlier why imo tracing won't work (how we want it to).

It is a worry that a reliable antibody test is taking so long.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I have similar concerns as a principle. On balance, I most likely will use the app because if I should contract the virus and be asymptomatic then at least anyone with whom I will have come into contact can be made aware and protect themselves and others.

But first I want to understand more about security, how the data will be stored, how long for, how it will be used, who will have access to it etc. Is there going to be legislation to set parameters around how government can collect, store and use the data - and time limitations when they will stop, even if an app is still installed?

Thousands of people need to be trained up as tracers, going out and talking to people who have been identified as being in contact (whatever that exactly means) with an infected person. What checks and safeguards will be in place?

This is where I expect Labour to be asking questions. I can see the difficulty as it will be too easy for them to be accused of being obstructive, not helping the government lift the lock-down etc., but it is important that the government is subject to very high scrutiny over this. A lot more information is needed imo.
Click to expand...

Mate.

Is easy.

When someone fcuks you off as people often do me. Leave your phone at home when you going out to get your own back on them.

Plan your route to avoid all cctv cameras. Your be fine. Now go fcuk up your enemies.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
What bit don't you get?

The difference is the deaths in theory are front loaded. With no cure, vaccine or anti virals, the people you've shielded are going to be in that state for a very long time. The virus is waiting for them, it doesn't mind which month it gets you, we have nothing to stand in its way.

The number of deaths spooks people and that can lead to a blind spot (and I understand why). The German or SKorea approach may well end up the better, but the hindsight goggles need to be left off for a good 18 months... we're miles away, on all fronts, to knowing the fall out from this.

Just too add. If everyone receives a good level of treatment if infected (as it appears they have ie 'not overwhelmed') then unnecessary deaths in that sense look like being avoided. The PPE (lack of) for those providing that care is a balls-up.
Click to expand...

Spot on, exactly why I think the peaks will come either early or later but they will come.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
What bit don't you get?

The difference is the deaths in theory are front loaded. With no cure, vaccine or anti virals, the people you've shielded are going to be in that state for a very long time. The virus is waiting for them, it doesn't mind which month it gets you, we have nothing to stand in its way.

The number of deaths spooks people and that can lead to a blind spot (and I understand why). The German or SKorea approach may well end up the better, but the hindsight goggles need to be left off for a good 18 months... we're miles away, on all fronts, to knowing the fall out from this.

Just too add. If everyone receives a good level of treatment if infected (as it appears they have ie 'not overwhelmed') then unnecessary deaths in that sense look like being avoided. The PPE (lack of) for those providing that care is a balls-up.
Click to expand...

Judging by the decisions of almost all governments across the world (bar Belarus) the 'let it spread' option does not seem to have any proponents. Nor should it. It would result in more deaths, public fear and economic harm. Pandemics are not a new thing.

There are case studies and models of different responses, people have studied it in some detail. Acting fast is always best. Doing nothing loses more lives and costs the economy more. For example, two towns on either side of the Mississippi river during the 1918 flu pandemic had two different approaches. One closed churches and schools and implemented social distancing, the other did nothing. I'll find a link...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ties-social-distancing-better-employment.html
 
SpurMeUp said:
Judging by the decisions of almost all governments across the world (bar Belarus) the 'let it spread' option does not seem to have any proponents. Nor should it. It would result in more deaths, public fear and economic harm. Pandemics are not a new thing.

There are case studies and models of different responses, people have studied it in some detail. Acting fast is always best. Doing nothing loses more lives and costs the economy more. For example, two towns on either side of the Mississippi river during the 1918 flu pandemic had two different approaches. One closed churches and schools and implemented social distancing, the other did nothing. I'll find a link...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ties-social-distancing-better-employment.html
Click to expand...
Whose saying 'let it spread' ?
 
SpurMeUp said:
What are you suggesting? It seemed like you were saying it was too early to judge which approach would be successful. Apologies if that wasn't what you were saying.
Click to expand...
The two approaches I have discussed are 'our' approach (and Italy, Spain, France etc) and the China, sKoreA, German approach.

The 'let it spread' aprroach, let's called it the Belarus approach, I've never considered as people will die because of a overwhelmed health service.

All I have ever been analysing is the two approaches (there could be nuances to all) in my first paragraph and concluding that either could be successful BUT dependant on factors that we just don't know yet, hence leaving the hindsight goggles off for circa 18 months
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
What bit don't you get?

The difference is the deaths in theory are front loaded. With no cure, vaccine or anti virals, the people you've shielded are going to be in that state for a very long time. The virus is waiting for them, it doesn't mind which month it gets you, we have nothing to stand in its way.

The number of deaths spooks people and that can lead to a blind spot (and I understand why). The German or SKorea approach may well end up the better, but the hindsight goggles need to be left off for a good 18 months... we're miles away, on all fronts, to knowing the fall out from this.

Just too add. If everyone receives a good level of treatment if infected (as it appears they have ie 'not overwhelmed') then unnecessary deaths in that sense look like being avoided. The PPE (lack of) for those providing that care is a balls-up.
Click to expand...

So we give up trying to prevent people contracting it? We just let people die? I am sorry but that it nonsense and makes a mockery of public health.

It's essential to look at countries that appear to have it under control and trying to implement similar methods. It's called learning from others. Epidemics are fast moving, public health professionals need to be flexible. Waiting 18 months to decide that what you are doing has not worked condemns many to die. I simply don't understand that view. The methods employed by these other countries are not novel either. It is how we prevent other endemic infections.

You are right you need to shield the vulnerable carefully, probably until a vaccine is in place. But if you can track the virus, isolate and keep the infection rate low you can adjust the type of shielding so it is not so onerous.

It has worked in other countries albeit the epidemic is not over. It's a bit odd to say ignore them for 18 months because if they have kept the numbers down now then it is likely that they will always be behind us. They are after all where we aim to be in a few weeks.
 
Last edited:
Grays_1890 said:
Spot on, exactly why I think the peaks will come either early or later but they will come.
Click to expand...
Based on what? You have to have some evidence behind this claim. Even if their peak comes later the likelihood is they will be behind us while it is equally likely we have a second peak.
 
Robspur12 said:
Based on what? You have to have some evidence behind this claim. Even if their peak comes later the likelihood is they will be behind us while it is equally likely we have a second peak.
Click to expand...
Sweden appears to be past the peak without locking down.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
The two approaches I have discussed are 'our' approach (and Italy, Spain, France etc) and the China, sKoreA, German approach.

The 'let it spread' aprroach, let's called it the Belarus approach, I've never considered as people will die because of a overwhelmed health service.

All I have ever been analysing is the two approaches (there could be nuances to all) in my first paragraph and concluding that either could be successful BUT dependant on factors that we just don't know yet, hence leaving the hindsight goggles off for circa 18 months
Click to expand...

Is there a difference between our approach and Korea and Germany? If there is I suppose it is simply our response time. They acted fast, we dallied and changed plans. Sweden is not greatly different. They have isolated vulnerable people, shut down colleges etc and asked people to maintain distancing. A semi-lockdown.

Would be interesting to know if the anti-bodies test is more reliable now, and when we might see it available. Could really open things up if nations could get it round their populations. Though there is the sticky question of what you do if you have not had the virus. Do you continue to isolate? Wear a face mask when out? Maintain sensible precautions like frequent hand washing and distancing...then eventually we'll get a vaccine and be able to move on.

What a curveball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back