Coronavirus - the new strain XVIII

[lordsummit]

irrelevant

It’s not irrelevant, always much easier to lockdown someone else rather than yourself.
Look at the contortions done to avoid locking down London last year, then the extra funding found to support them. It would be a disaster if Gtr Manchester was locked down again. It would be the same for Lancashire and Leicester. Everything possible needs to be done first to avoid this.

 

[Seanm]

From New Zealand:

https://theconversation.com/a-year-...crimination-and-racism-are-on-the-rise-160858

Turns out sealing borders increases discrimination and racism, even if it’s done for health reasons.

 

[sean99]

It occurred to me today that perhaps the positive test rate might underestimate the spread of COVID19 in a vaccinated population because people would be less likely to have symptoms. Then I remembered that Massachusetts is sampling sewage for Covid so I googled and found a very reassuring graph.
https://www.mwra.com/biobot/biobotdata.htm

lockdown ended weeks ago here and schools have been back for the past month (most have been part in person throughout). I have to say it looks pretty encouraging.

 

[Seanm]

Emily Thornberry here on dirty foreigners:

https://twitter.com/dseddon91/status/1395325323080781825?s=20

 

[deej92]

It’s not irrelevant, always much easier to lockdown someone else rather than yourself.
Look at the contortions done to avoid locking down London last year, then the extra funding found to support them. It would be a disaster if Gtr Manchester was locked down again. It would be the same for Lancashire and Leicester. Everything possible needs to be done first to avoid this.

Absolutely spot on.

The people calling for these lockdowns are middle-class scientists and politicians, who are not affected by them and even actually stand to benefit. So they’ll find any shred of data they can to justify what they want.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Absolutely spot on.

The people calling for these lockdowns are middle-class scientists and politicians, who are not affected by them and even actually stand to benefit. So they’ll find any shred of data they can to justify what they want.

Disagree. Nobody benefits from lockdowns, except in the sense that they can prevent deaths. They are an economic nightmare, and apt to create a disgruntled population. To say scientists and politicians advocate them because they stand to benefit, is absurd.

 

[Tony L]

From New Zealand:

https://theconversation.com/a-year-...crimination-and-racism-are-on-the-rise-160858

Turns out sealing borders increases discrimination and racism, even if it’s done for health reasons.

Not necessarily down to closing borders. Apparently racism and violence towards Asian folk (especially women) has increased hugely in the USA as a result of covid 19, I guess in part due to having a totally moronic racist POTUS for so much of it, though in metropolitan areas such as NYC too. I suspect it will have here in the UK too, but I have no hard evidence to hand. Certain thick people will always be racist for any reason they can justify. It doesn’t take many of them for it to be a real problem. I’d certainly not attempt to correlate it to NZ’s world-beating response to C19.

 

[deej92]

Disagree. Nobody benefits from lockdowns, except in the sense that they can prevent deaths. They are an economic nightmare, and apt to create a disgruntled population. To say scientists and politicians advocate them because they stand to benefit, is absurd.

We’ll have to disagree as there absolutely are scientists and people at the top of society who stand to benefit from all of this and there are others who love lockdowns. Some of these people are about as out-of-touch with the working class as the current Labour Party. I’d hazard a guess that some of them have never been inside a pub or had to work in a normal job all their life.

 

[Amber Audio]

We’ll have to disagree as there absolutely are scientists and people at the top of society who stand to benefit from all of this. Some of these people are about as out-of-touch with the working class as the current Labour Party. I’d hazard a guess that some of them have never been inside a pub or had to work in a normal job all their life.

How exactly do they benefit and who exactly are you referring to specifically?

 

[gintonic]

Absolutely spot on.

The people calling for these lockdowns are middle-class scientists and politicians, who are not affected by them and even actually stand to benefit. So they’ll find any shred of data they can to justify what they want.

What a load of nonsense

top of society who stand to benefit from all of this

really?

Sorry do you really not understand the range and complexity of the issues we face?

We are faced with a lethal virus, that could kill us all. We have a toolbox of defenses we can deploy to protect the people in this country. The easiest and undoubtedly most effective means of preventing spread is to limit contact between humans - ie a lockdown.

Also in our toolbox we have masks, social distancing, personal hygiene etc - all barrier methods of keeping the virus away from us.

And then in the toolbox we have vaccines. Which offer some protection to some of the people against some of the variants. Vaccines are good if and when they work, and if vaccines provide less protection against some variants then we will have to use the other means in our toolbox.

New variants of viruses emerge all the time (why do we reformulate the flu vaccine every year?) which leaves us the possibility of less protection from vaccines that we would like. In the case of the so called Indian variant, which appears to be massively more transmissible we just do not have enough data to understand the effectiveness of the existing vaccines.

So what should we do? Let a virus variant that we know a little about (our knowledge is growing) spread among the population (possibly killing some) or extend a lockdown for the few weeks it takes for us to understand how effective the vaccines are.

Can you explain how scientists are likely to benefit. I have modelers and data scientists in my department - working on Covid related projects, who are working their arses off doing science to help society, can you explain how a lockdown benefits my middle-class scientists?

 

[gavreid]

PHE has published some vaccine efficacy data today mostly at medium to low confidence but both vaccines seem pretty similar within these limits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...081260045223af#block-60a667b58f081260045223af

Cases are stable overall but rising in the NW. Outbreaks are up by 63% in a week

"Overall, the report shows cases rates are highest among people aged 10-19. However hospital admission rates are highest among those aged 85 and above."

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...081260045223f1#block-60a66daa8f081260045223f1

 

[billo]

Who would have thought it? Track and Trace PLC failure
For three weeks in April and May, eight local authorities in England did not have access to the full data on positive tests in their area.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57186059

 

[gavreid]

2 874 cases, 7 deaths, 74 hospitalisations

 

[Seanm]

What a load of nonsense



really?

Sorry do you really not understand the range and complexity of the issues we face?

We are faced with a lethal virus, that could kill us all. We have a toolbox of defenses we can deploy to protect the people in this country. The easiest and undoubtedly most effective means of preventing spread is to limit contact between humans - ie a lockdown.

Also in our toolbox we have masks, social distancing, personal hygiene etc - all barrier methods of keeping the virus away from us.

And then in the toolbox we have vaccines. Which offer some protection to some of the people against some of the variants. Vaccines are good if and when they work, and if vaccines provide less protection against some variants then we will have to use the other means in our toolbox.

New variants of viruses emerge all the time (why do we reformulate the flu vaccine every year?) which leaves us the possibility of less protection from vaccines that we would like. In the case of the so called Indian variant, which appears to be massively more transmissible we just do not have enough data to understand the effectiveness of the existing vaccines.

So what should we do? Let a virus variant that we know a little about (our knowledge is growing) spread among the population (possibly killing some) or extend a lockdown for the few weeks it takes for us to understand how effective the vaccines are.

Can you explain how scientists are likely to benefit. I have modelers and data scientists in my department - working on Covid related projects, who are working their arses off doing science to help society, can you explain how a lockdown benefits my middle-class scientists?

Lockdown is not the easiest and most effective way of preventing spread - except amongst those who are able to work from home, and who are comfortable at home, and whose dependents can be catered for easily under lockdown. This largely cashes out as “wealthy, older professional people.” I’ve no idea how Deej thinks scientists etc are benefiting from lockdown but it’s probably fair to say that many of them are in the class least affected by it, and best served. For most people lockdown is not easy, and is not effective. Because they’re out there working, in unsafe conditions, to keep the rest of us comfortable, or have lost work and/or money, or have needs that are difficult to meet under lockdown.

Re vaccines: they are all very effective, against all known vaccines, for nearly everyone. This does need to be acknowledged, even if we also have to acknowledge that they’re not magic.

 

[mandryka]

Everything possible needs to be done first to avoid this [lockdown].

Lockdown is always avoidable, there is never a need to lockdown. You just have to decide to let the people get sick and die. Prima facie, at least, you can't avoid trading off economic costs and health costs.

I say prima facie because Dominic Cummings believes differently. He gestures towards an argument which, he says, shows that hard lockdown is the best plan economically and in terms of direct COVID health implications. He sites the article I've linked at the bottom of this post -- I haven't had a chance to think about his argument properly yet, except to say that I think it is more complex than Cummings or that article are suggesting.


Home / Twitter
Yes, lockdowns were good - Noahpinion (substack.com)

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Lockdown is always avoidable, there is never a need to lockdown. You just have to decide to let the people get sick and die. Prima facie, at least, you can't avoid trading off economic costs and health costs.

I say prima facie because Dominic Cummings believes differently. He gestures towards an argument which, he says, shows that hard lockdown is the best plan economically and in terms of direct COVID health implications. He sites the article I've linked at the bottom of this post -- I haven't had a chance to think about his argument properly yet, except to say that I think it is more complex than Cummings or that article are suggesting.

Cummings was an early and strong advocate of herd immunity and 'let it rip' approach, though. Which is very much at odds with what you summarise here.

 

[deej92]

Sorry do you really not understand the range and complexity of the issues we face?

We are faced with a lethal virus, that could kill us all. We have a toolbox of defenses we can deploy to protect the people in this country. The easiest and undoubtedly most effective means of preventing spread is to limit contact between humans - ie a lockdown.

Also in our toolbox we have masks, social distancing, personal hygiene etc - all barrier methods of keeping the virus away from us.

And then in the toolbox we have vaccines. Which offer some protection to some of the people against some of the variants. Vaccines are good if and when they work, and if vaccines provide less protection against some variants then we will have to use the other means in our toolbox.

New variants of viruses emerge all the time (why do we reformulate the flu vaccine every year?) which leaves us the possibility of less protection from vaccines that we would like. In the case of the so called Indian variant, which appears to be massively more transmissible we just do not have enough data to understand the effectiveness of the existing vaccines.

So what should we do? Let a virus variant that we know a little about (our knowledge is growing) spread among the population (possibly killing some) or extend a lockdown for the few weeks it takes for us to understand how effective the vaccines are.

Can you explain how scientists are likely to benefit. I have modelers and data scientists in my department - working on Covid related projects, who are working their arses off doing science to help society, can you explain how a lockdown benefits my middle-class scientists?

You said it was irrelevant that millions of people living in areas such as Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Leicester have spent most of the past year in lockdown and restrictions. That tells me everything I need to know. I’m sure it’s irrelevant to all the businesses forced to close, people made redundant and all those with mental health problems who can’t go and see a family member for support because they’re not allowed.

I’d echo Sean’s thoughts re why I think some of these scientists and politicians benefit from lockdowns. Easy for them to want lockdowns when it doesn’t affect them and they don’t have to go out to work or have been put on furlough etc in a cramped flat with a family to feed.

However much you cheerlead lockdowns, they’re not our way out of this. They may stop the spread but once you open things up, the virus comes back and repeat. In the long-term, they are not sustainable and will ruin what is left of this country. Vaccines are our only way out of this pandemic ultimately and that’s what the government and the scientists are saying.

 

[Amber Audio]

How exactly do they benefit and who exactly are you referring to specifically?

Waiting for a reply.....

 

[hc25036]

Waiting for a reply.....

Keep asking! I decided to delete a less polite (but jokey) response....

 

[jimbob75]

Lockdown is not the easiest and most effective way of preventing spread - except amongst those who are able to work from home, and who are comfortable at home, and whose dependents can be catered for easily under lockdown. This largely cashes out as “wealthy, older professional people.” I’ve no idea how Deej thinks scientists etc are benefiting from lockdown but it’s probably fair to say that many of them are in the class least affected by it, and best served. For most people lockdown is not easy, and is not effective. Because they’re out there working, in unsafe conditions, to keep the rest of us comfortable, or have lost work and/or money, or have needs that are difficult to meet under lockdown.

Re vaccines: they are all very effective, against all known vaccines, for nearly everyone. This does need to be acknowledged, even if we also have to acknowledge that they’re not magic.

Indeed..some on here are quite happy to call for lockdown as they sit at home waiting for the next gourmet ingredient, boutique gin, box of craft ale etc to be miraculously deposited on their doorstep.