Coronavirus - Part Two.

[butlers 259]

As to Sage projections at the very beginning when it was a completely new unknown disease.

Both Imperial College and independently the CDC have found  under the circumstances of the headline making number was going to be an under count.

Those reviews were about mid Sept  from memory.

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by butlers

[Longcol 598]

5 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 

No it doesn't- they cared about one cherry picked negative [covid infections] and dismissed all the others- the consequences of, and purely of, the lockdowns and measures- ie the mental health issues, the destroyed small businesses, the damage to civil liberties, the children with terminal cancer who died unable to be visited by family, the massive numbers of untreated patients, some with cancer, which are likely to overwhelm the NHS, care home deaths etc, etc, etc.

 

And then these selfish people who acted primarily out of self interest and fear, have the temerity to accuse those of us who did care about all the above, of being selfish!!!

Been waiting for you to give us the figures on this since last October.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/198/?tab=comments#comment-8375366

 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

7 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 

A ludicrous stance- the majority acted out of self interest due to the fact that they believed [rightly or wrongly] they would fall victim to a deadly pandemic

Excellent response. 

No it doesn't- they cared about one cherry picked negative [covid infections] and dismissed all the others- the consequences of, and purely of, the lockdowns and measures- ie the mental health issues, the destroyed small businesses, the damage to civil liberties, the children with terminal cancer who died unable to be visited by family, the massive numbers of untreated patients, some with cancer, which are likely to overwhelm the NHS, care home deaths etc, etc, etc.

 

And then these selfish people who acted primarily out of self interest and fear, have the temerity to accuse those of us who did care about all the above, of being selfish!!!

We used used to be 'sheeple' now we are 'selfish sheeple'.*

 

*Tongue twister competition? 

[top4718 838]

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Had we not chosen to have lockdowns in response to covid we would have had at least another quarter million covid deaths. Further under this scenario our hospitals would scarcely have been able to provide treatment at anything like normal levels while the pandemic passed through the population.

 

Or are you another who insists on their own alternative facts.

You can not keep doubling the cases without that doubling process transferring to hospitalizations and deaths. The government can decide the price is worth paying but there is a price.

Cases can be people who have no symptoms whatsoever, its no precursor to anything. People in ventilation capable beds in the NHS hasn't risen by any margin during the last few weeks, it stands at 158 out of a 67m population (coronavirus.data.gov.uk) the number of people in general and acute beds is currently lower than it was in the whole of 2019 (NHS England).

 

It was also interesting to read the words of Dr Thomas House of Manchester Uni who sits on the Governments modelling team - Future modelling on the pandemic must take into account harms caused by lockdowns and that lockdowns cannot become the default option for dealing with outbreaks. 

 

I'm sure he knows a little more than Annie Bynol.

 

 

9 hours ago, butlers said:

Life is full of risks.

Yet not long back you were denying there were ANY deaths AT ALL from the virus.

Then it was just flu.

Then it was masks don't help.

Then testing does not work

But mostly unless you are old or have preconditions ,it's nothing.

The thing being our behaviour as the lucky young-ish and healthy needs caution rather than the blithe "I'm alright jack " that comes out over every other post you do

You have said  you judge the risk ( to you) by intuition.

Can't you see how barmy that sounds.

 Either a glorious 3-0 romp to England or an own goal calamity 0-1  .

Anyhow after yesterday's traumas,watching Denmark whatever happens  it's only a game 

I never once said there were no deaths from the virus. 

Masks absolutely do not work

Testing works but is unreliable

The old or pre-existing conditions is correct in 97% of cases

I've got this far in life without serious illness with having a nanny state tell me what to do.

[Longcol 598]

8 minutes ago, top4718 said:

 

The old or pre-existing conditions is correct in 97% of cases

 

Evidence?

[top4718 838]

7 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Evidence?

The CDC graphs show the chances of death from people under 69 years old to be less than three percent, the younger you get the less its gets, its under 1% for the very young, you stay hiding behind your sofa.

[Guest sibon]

9 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Evidence?

Common sense .

 

Dontchaknow.

Just now, top4718 said:

The CDC graphs show the chances of death from people under 69 years old to be less than three percent, the younger you get the less its gets, its under 1% for the very young, you stay hiding behind your sofa.

If three out of every hundred car journeys killed you, would you get in a car?

[butlers 259]

You do your" argument" no good with the sofa jibe .

As it's not that long back you were telling us the deaths in 2020 was lower than the year before  and all that flows from that.

3 percent sounds a nice reassuring number until you you scale to millions of infections 

[Longcol 598]

1 minute ago, top4718 said:

The CDC graphs show the chances of death from people under 69 years old to be less than three percent, the younger you get the less its gets, its under 1% for the very young, you stay hiding behind your sofa.

No chance - sitting outside on my terrace in France with a beer or two.

 

And who are CDC when they're at home?

[top4718 838]

2 minutes ago, sibon said:

Common sense .

 

Dontchaknow.

If three out of every hundred car journeys killed you, would you get in a car?

3% of covid deaths in people under 69, there's no record of whether these people had serious pre-existing conditions or were overweight which are key factors.

 

I wouldn't get in a car if I had a condition that would put my life at risk no.

 

You really are scared to death by all this, I'm amazed.

Just now, Longcol said:

No chance - sitting outside on my terrace in France with a beer or two.

 

And who are CDC when they're at home?

Only the Centre for Disease Prevention & Control - the quivering majority on here will know better than them though I suppose.

[butlers 259]

Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta ,Georgia

[Guest sibon]

1 minute ago, top4718 said:

3% of covid deaths in people under 69, there's no record of whether these people had serious pre-existing conditions or were overweight which are key factors.

 

I wouldn't get in a car if I had a condition that would put my life at risk no.

 

You really are scared to death by all this, I'm amazed.

But you’d get in a car that had a 3% chance of killing you, otherwise?

 

You need to go and find that plot.

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

No chance - sitting outside on my terrace in France with a beer or two.

 

And who are CDC when they're at home?

I’m off for a holiday this week. Camping, hiking, swimming and drinking.

 

I’ll hide behind my sofa when I get back, if that’s ok with Dr @top4718