Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)
- Thread starter HMGovt’s Glorious Return!
- Start date
-
- Tags
- "the delta variant" starring arnold schwarzenegger #braille4bats and dancing!!! biscuits nuts bodies in the streets cool people with bad lungs corpsey = patient zero do you ever look at this thread and wtf get pits done haha protein printer go brrr i'm trapped please help johnson’s technique please boris die public health films for bats rodent trumpet rotting corpses sailing the sea of biscuits slick prick soggy biscuits wash hands or die trying we are the swarm wear a fucking baguette then wubonic plague wuhan got you all in check
- Status
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Can't wrap everyone up in cotton wool (= lock them up, destroy their futures) for a tiny minority's benefit, it's utterly immoral. Helping the vulnerable to shield is fine, but only if they want to be helped. Would rather be ill in a healthy country (especially a mentally healthy one) than vice versa.
IdleRich
IdleRich
The question is where the balance lies - it's not as simple as "you can never inconvenience the many to save the few whatever the details". Presumably we would both agree that the question is how much you can demand of the many to save the few, what the risks are to those few... and also how many actually are the many and the few.
As you've consistently argued that the few are much fewer than they are commonly understood to be and that the risks are much lower than they appear, then of course you are gonna be less approving of the perceived sacrifices than most. I'm not sure that you've really made those points stick though - to me they only seem to be plausible if you disregard out of hand all the disagreeing evidence while seizing on and shouting about the few outliers that seem to make your case for you.
As you've consistently argued that the few are much fewer than they are commonly understood to be and that the risks are much lower than they appear, then of course you are gonna be less approving of the perceived sacrifices than most. I'm not sure that you've really made those points stick though - to me they only seem to be plausible if you disregard out of hand all the disagreeing evidence while seizing on and shouting about the few outliers that seem to make your case for you.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Although today Hancock actually claimed they locked down on the 16th March - they are literally trying to re-write history as scientists are today saying that that delay cost 20k lives.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Sure there's no evidence of that in the SAGE minutes
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yeah it's weird isn't it? But either way the medical advisor is saying that SAGE advised Johnson to shut down immediately on the 16th and no-one is disputing it, in fact Hancock claimed that they acted on it... but the actual facts show that they actually shut down a week later and the latest viewpoint is that that delay cost 20,000 lives.
Funny cos I was joking when I said that those SAGE minutes may not be reliable but it's beginning to look as though that might have been closer to the truth than I guessed.
Funny cos I was joking when I said that those SAGE minutes may not be reliable but it's beginning to look as though that might have been closer to the truth than I guessed.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I think that's a false dichotomy. If the lockdown had been introduced three or four weeks earlier, had actually forced all employers to furlough all employees in non-critical roles and brought in the same benefits for the self-employed, and had fully closed the borders (except perhaps for British-domiciled people returning home, who should still have been quarantined), then maybe we'd be in a situation somewhat like Greece. They lifted their lockdown over two months ago after just 150 deaths.
Or even if the outcome wasn't quite that good, I think it would be far better than what we've actually had.
My feeling is that if the government had acted sooner and more decisively, our lockdown would be fully over by now, in fact may have been for some time. Or at least, any additional lockdowns would have been restricted to hotspot areas.
It would have meant far fewer infections and a shorter lockdown, thus less economic harm. Better from any POV.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Wishful thinking really...maybe next time
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
How did they work this out? The greatest effect on deaths would be from controlling infections in care homes and hospitals - this could have been improved without a universal lockdown. I still don't understand how a universal lockdown makes much of a difference to care home transmission.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The govt are in a tricky position: they can't claim that early lockdown would not have made a difference as that would undermine lockdown per se and then they'll be sued left, right and centre.
IdleRich
IdleRich
It's definitely not the most honest way to represent what's going on... you could equally argue that it would be totally immoral to let hundreds of thousands of people die just so a few wankers could still go to the pub and some business owners could get richer.
I think that we should all be at the stage where we can make our arguments in good faith by now. Better than that basically.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Sweden's outcome has shown a light touch would not have been catastrophic
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yeah that makes complete sense, it's much better to avoid being sued for loss of business by claiming (dishonestly!) that their delay in action killed 20,000 people, I don't know why I didn't see that myself.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
In fact, it may well have turned out better
IdleRich
IdleRich
My point was that you characterised it disingenuously and I could do the same if I chose.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
In what way?
IdleRich
IdleRich
This bit
Everyone would agree with their statement in isolation.... but not everyone would agree that that statement is an honest or accurate description of what is happening.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Ok, so say early lockdown would have saved 20,000 people who were largely confined to quarters anyway - that's 1 in 3000 people.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Why, though? The stark fact is that this disease is not affecting all countries equally, or even nearly equally. The UK was rated as recently as last year as being one of the best-prepared countries in the world for dealing with a pandemic of this sort, even after a decade of concerted attacks on the NHS and the scientific and medical establishment. Yet for a while we had the second-highest death toll of any country, until we were overtaken by a developing country with about three times our population. I don't think this is "just one of those things".
- Status