Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Anonymous,MyNameIsUrl,6Tricia,staffordian, for Donating to support the site

Some perspective

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
XFool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7465
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 988 times

Re: Some perspective

#449375

Postby XFool » October 11th, 2021, 7:28 pm

Arborbridge wrote:Why, I wonder, do some oddballs opposed covid vaccine, but presumably not other injections, many of which was have in childhood and throughout our lives.

That thought had occurred to me. I don't know, perhaps that doesn't count as they now feel they had no say in the matter? Some may have had anti-vaxx parents and not been vaccinated in childhood.

Arborbridge wrote:I don't remember any "resistance" to previous medical breakthroughs - polio, etc. Why has this noisy minority of population become so self-destructive? Or was there always such a minority but without social media to act as an echo chamber, it was simply ignored?

There is a long history of antipathy to vaccination:

History of Anti-vaccination Movements

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements

The modern anti-vaxx movement seems to have kicked off originally in the UK, with Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

The Anti-vaccination Movement: A Regression in Modern Medicine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122668/


What I find even more difficult to understand is idiots like this - wrong about everything but still going strong:

The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/

But these days, on the Internet and elsewhere, there just seems to be so much lunacy around...

U962
Posts: 5
Joined: June 16th, 2021, 6:25 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Some perspective

#449613

Postby U962 » October 12th, 2021, 6:33 pm

Arborbridge wrote:Why, I wonder, do some oddballs opposed covid vaccine, but presumably not other injections, many of which was have in childhood and throughout our lives.

I don't remember any "resistance" to previous medical breakthroughs - polio, etc. Why has this noisy minority of population become so self-destructive? Or was there always such a minority but without social media to act as an echo chamber, it was simply ignored?
Arb


Well I'll try on my own behalf as myself is going nowhere near THIS vax - but its probably a waste of time.

1. I've already had the virus: just a mild winters cold with some very strange symptoms. So I know the risk to me of the actual virus is zero. Therefore by definition that ALL medical interventions have some risk, the risk to me of having the vax must be higher than the risk to me of having the virus.

2. How many vax do we give to a person who has already had the disease to which the vax is for - that would be none. Me having the vax would fall under the category of an unnecessary treatment which I think is against doctors oath.

3. I know others who have likewise had the virus mildly and then had the vax and ended up in bed for a day plus. and this is acceptable? No it blinking well not acceptable to have a vax where the side effects of the vax are worse than the virus for such people. Indeed do we know of any other vax in the history of vax's that put people in bed ill as a side effect - again no.
The sad case of Liz Shaw who died in a week of the vax would been enough in past times to pull the vax off the shelves - but it appears not this time so I conclude HMG/NHS is not really interested in my heath as in individual.

4. Actually is not a vax within the pre 2021 meaning of the word 'vax'. Indeed the CDC in the USA has now changed its definition of a "vax" from giving immunity to merely giving your "protection'' - so they were lying. It is actually just a therapeutic treatment.

5. Exactly how much has Pfzier been fined for fraudulent health care - that woudl be $2.3Bn. I'd not believe a word they say about anything.

6. All these other vax's - and indeed I have a yellow card with vax's stamped on them have been around for years and tested for years before I had them - ANY new vax is going to be rejected by me unless the risk to me is somewhere near the black death. you should know that most new products don't work as they are stated, and with software the rule is never buy anything less than version 3. I never EVER buy anything just released - let someone else do the beta testing.

7. HMG scum were clearly lying about the AZ blood clots. We had the EMA flag up a concern however HMG had all the behavioral specialist out in force in the media saying how we had given 16 million vaxes and it was totally safe (no, no vax is EVER totally safe). Of course what they left out was that our 16 million were given to older people not affected by the issue while the EMA figures were from younger people. By the middle of the week they had found a few more blood clots - down the back of the sofa so to speak (lying toads they knew about them all along) and by the end of the week they had restricted the AZ vax in younger people and a month or so later they sneaked out they were further restricting it. Do I believe a word HMG or the NHS says about the vax- frankly no is the answer.

8. Why are Pfzier,AZ etc legally immune from prosecution for any vax damage. If the vax is safe they should be fully exposed to unlimited liability on the basis it will never be called in as its totally safe. Instead we have to rely on HMH's compensation fund of up to £100K max - well should pay for care for a couple of years max. Not that HMG would pay of course, HMG spent 10 years fighting in court to avoid paying for the narcolepsy damage to people following the swine flu vax debacle - until the courts finally ruled HMG must payout in 2017 as I recall.

9. in England the number of people who are fit, healthy, no underlying conditions or other illnesses and under the age of 60 who have died of the virus as of the end of Dec 2020 was 388. I did see somewhere that that figure is now around 550. Basically if you are fit, not overweight, under the age of 60 - it's an irrelevance - hence the often stated figure of 99%+ recovery rate.

10 The argument that the unvax'd create vax evading variants so we should be vax'd regardless is total twaddle. Variants arise by random, however where they arise in a vaxd or partially vaxd person there is an evolutionary selection pressure for the variant which can survive to become dominate. Its like lockdowns - the variants that cannot survive die out and the ones that can go on to prosper:so our leaky lockdowns merely create stronger variants just like the leaky vax's create stronger variants. If we could have a 100% lockdown and a fully sterilizing vax then the story would be different: the former is a practical impossibility and the second is not the case.
It's all a bit like blaming the non users of antibiotics for the spread of antibiotic resistance!

11. I've already had a instant severe reaction to a yellow card grade vax a decade or so ago - so I'll not be having ANY more vax's thank you very much. I suppose that vax was another fully approved fully safe vax?...yup it was.

11. Even the medical pro's are clearly now lying. One told me that even if I had the virus now after 6 months the antibodies woudl have gone and I'd have no resistance at all to reinfection Oh I said so does this mean my blood still has all the antibodies to every infection I've ever had plus the antibodies from all the vax's I've ever had.....you know to stop me getting the disease again and how do the memory and T cells of the bodies immune system fit into to all of this. as you can guess the subject was dropped instantly once they realized that their lies were being called out.

12 No I don't take other medicines, I occasionally as in once every 6 months maybe have/need paracetamol


To be clear then.... I'll not be having this vax under ANY circumstance whatsoever. (I'm late 50's, with a bmi of aorund 21)

What of people who ask me?
Three categories: those who get the answer and move on, those who inquire and get the above explanation and so far have agreed and move on and then there is the final category who go nuts about how I'm a danger to everyone. They are told to their face to fk off and never contact me ever again - the message is getting round my village pronto it appears.

Actually I've become an embarrassment, despite not being vax, not wearing a mask where I can possibly avoid it, not taking any precautions going out, going to restaurants and crowded supermarkets etc I am singularly failing to become ill much less as the OP put it "self destruct".

I shall leave the REALLY funny bit till the last. One medical pro has now reversed position and rather than urging me to get the vax now says that actually given that I just continue to not get ill I might be an important subject for further genetic study as an unvax'd, post virus individual

vagrantbrain
Lemon Slice
Posts: 309
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 7:12 pm
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Re: Some perspective

#449646

Postby vagrantbrain » October 12th, 2021, 8:09 pm

U962 wrote:

9. in England the number of people who are fit, healthy, no underlying conditions or other illnesses and under the age of 60 who have died of the virus as of the end of Dec 2020 was 388. I did see somewhere that that figure is now around 550. Basically if you are fit, not overweight, under the age of 60 - it's an irrelevance - hence the often stated figure of 99%+ recovery rate.



I know exactly where that number comes from and its complete misuse by anti-vaxxers: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... tionsbyage

542 had died by the end of June 2020, so about 3 months of the pandemic and ignores the next 15+ months and the two waves that followed.

XFool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7465
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 988 times

Re: Some perspective

#449651

Postby XFool » October 12th, 2021, 8:33 pm

U962 wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:Why, I wonder, do some oddballs opposed covid vaccine, but presumably not other injections, many of which was have in childhood and throughout our lives.

I don't remember any "resistance" to previous medical breakthroughs - polio, etc. Why has this noisy minority of population become so self-destructive? Or was there always such a minority but without social media to act as an echo chamber, it was simply ignored?
Arb

Well I'll try on my own behalf as myself is going nowhere near THIS vax - but its probably a waste of time.

Hope you don't mind a few (mild!) casual comments...

U962 wrote:1. I've already had the virus: just a mild winters cold with some very strange symptoms. So I know the risk to me of the actual virus is zero. Therefore by definition that ALL medical interventions have some risk, the risk to me of having the vax must be higher than the risk to me of having the virus.

Was it verified as the COVID-19 virus? Which variety? I don't really follow the logic of how the risk to you of the vax "must be higher than the risk of having the virus." - e.g. Some people have been ill with COVID more than once. Rare? Yes, but so is the risk from the vaccine.

U962 wrote:2. How many vax do we give to a person who has already had the disease to which the vax is for - that would be none. Me having the vax would fall under the category of an unnecessary treatment which I think is against doctors oath.

So influenza doesn't count? And no, I have no real idea whether I ever have had influenza or not. I have colds not "flu". ;)

U962 wrote:3. I know others who have likewise had the virus mildly and then had the vax and ended up in bed for a day plus. and this is acceptable? No it blinking well not acceptable to have a vax where the side effects of the vax are worse than the virus for such people. Indeed do we know of any other vax in the history of vax's that put people in bed ill as a side effect - again no.

Well, I've had three now - 2 x AstraZeneca and 1 x Pfizer, spent no time in bed at all. I reckon that is typical, not "a day in bed". (Perhaps they came down with a cold?)

U962 wrote:The sad case of Liz Shaw who died in a week of the vax would been enough in past times to pull the vax off the shelves - but it appears not this time so I conclude HMG/NHS is not really interested in my heath as in individual.

Lisa Shaw and there have been others, very sad. Then again, COVID-19 can cause blood clots. As ever, it's a balance of risks. All much simpler if it wasn't.

U962 wrote:4. Actually is not a vax within the pre 2021 meaning of the word 'vax'. Indeed the CDC in the USA has now changed its definition of a "vax" from giving immunity to merely giving your "protection'' - so they were lying. It is actually just a therapeutic treatment.

Then more than one vaccination is "just a therapeutic treatment" (what's wrong with that?) as immunity does wane, from vaccination and from many contracted diseases. It's only for some that it's for life (measles?)

U962 wrote:5. Exactly how much has Pfzier been fined for fraudulent health care - that woudl be $2.3Bn. I'd not believe a word they say about anything.

As I had two AstraZeneca vaccines I didn't have to. But Pfizer would have had to satisfy the CDC in the US.

U962 wrote:6. All these other vax's - and indeed I have a yellow card with vax's stamped on them have been around for years and tested for years before I had them - ANY new vax is going to be rejected by me unless the risk to me is somewhere near the black death. you should know that most new products don't work as they are stated, and with software the rule is never buy anything less than version 3. I never EVER buy anything just released - let someone else do the beta testing.

Were they not tested? Were not the results released? Have they now not been used on entire populations?

U962 wrote:7. HMG scum were clearly lying about the AZ blood clots. We had the EMA flag up a concern however HMG had all the behavioral specialist out in force in the media saying how we had given 16 million vaxes and it was totally safe (no, no vax is EVER totally safe).

Indeed. Neither is any viral disease.

U962 wrote: Of course what they left out was that our 16 million were given to older people not affected by the issue while the EMA figures were from younger people. By the middle of the week they had found a few more blood clots - down the back of the sofa so to speak (lying toads they knew about them all along) and by the end of the week they had restricted the AZ vax in younger people and a month or so later they sneaked out they were further restricting it. Do I believe a word HMG or the NHS says about the vax- frankly no is the answer.

So nothing unknown is ever discovered? It is always all known already, just being hidden by nefarious actors?

U962 wrote:8. Why are Pfzier,AZ etc legally immune from prosecution for any vax damage.

Because it was for use in an international emergency, in the middle of a pandemic of a novel virus. That is why the risk was shouldered by governments, so the commercial companies could just get on with it.

U962 wrote:9. in England the number of people who are fit, healthy, no underlying conditions or other illnesses and under the age of 60 who have died of the virus as of the end of Dec 2020 was 388. I did see somewhere that that figure is now around 550. Basically if you are fit, not overweight, under the age of 60 - it's an irrelevance - hence the often stated figure of 99%+ recovery rate.

I see you haven't included after effects in those badly affected.

U962 wrote:10 The argument that the unvax'd create vax evading variants so we should be vax'd regardless is total twaddle. Variants arise by random, however where they arise in a vaxd or partially vaxd person there is an evolutionary selection pressure for the variant which can survive to become dominate. Its like lockdowns - the variants that cannot survive die out and the ones that can go on to prosper:so our leaky lockdowns merely create stronger variants just like the leaky vax's create stronger variants. If we could have a 100% lockdown and a fully sterilizing vax then the story would be different: the former is a practical impossibility and the second is not the case.

You have left out the health services being overrun in the 'let it rip' scenario - which seems the only alternative, given your rejection of all the others!

U962 wrote:11. I've already had a instant severe reaction to a yellow card grade vax a decade or so ago - so I'll not be having ANY more vax's thank you very much. I suppose that vax was another fully approved fully safe vax?...yup it was.

So possibly you ARE vulnerable to reactions from vaccinations. If so that would alter the calculus. Did you discuss it with your GP?

U962 wrote:11. Even the medical pro's are clearly now lying. One told me that even if I had the virus now after 6 months the antibodies woudl have gone and I'd have no resistance at all to reinfection Oh I said so does this mean my blood still has all the antibodies to every infection I've ever had plus the antibodies from all the vax's I've ever had.....you know to stop me getting the disease again and how do the memory and T cells of the bodies immune system fit into to all of this. as you can guess the subject was dropped instantly once they realized that their lies were being called out.

"the medical pro's are clearly now lying" - starting to sound a bit 'conspiracy theory' now.

U962 wrote:12 No I don't take other medicines, I occasionally as in once every 6 months maybe have/need paracetamol

To be clear then.... I'll not be having this vax under ANY circumstance whatsoever. (I'm late 50's, with a bmi of aorund 21)

What of people who ask me?
Three categories: those who get the answer and move on, those who inquire and get the above explanation and so far have agreed and move on and then there is the final category who go nuts about how I'm a danger to everyone. They are told to their face to fk off and never contact me ever again - the message is getting round my village pronto it appears.

Actually I've become an embarrassment, despite not being vax, not wearing a mask where I can possibly avoid it, not taking any precautions going out, going to restaurants and crowded supermarkets etc I am singularly failing to become ill much less as the OP put it "self destruct".

You're not one of those 'Libertarians' are you? ;)

U962 wrote:I shall leave the REALLY funny bit till the last. One medical pro has now reversed position and rather than urging me to get the vax now says that actually given that I just continue to not get ill I might be an important subject for further genetic study as an unvax'd, post virus individual

You're a phenomenon!

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1922
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 613 times
Been thanked: 738 times

Re: Some perspective

#449657

Postby jfgw » October 12th, 2021, 9:02 pm

U962 wrote:Indeed do we know of any other vax in the history of vax's that put people in bed ill as a side effect - again no.


What did this one do to you?

U962 wrote:11. I've already had a instant severe reaction to a yellow card grade vax a decade or so ago...


(what's a yellow card grade vax?)


Julian F. G. W.

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 448
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Some perspective

#449678

Postby 9873210 » October 12th, 2021, 9:49 pm

onthemove wrote:But imagine if the vaccines hadn't worked - imagine the results of the trials had come in, and none of them showed any signs of offering protection.

Vaccines were not and are not the only way forward. We still don't have a vaccine for HIV, yet AIDS is manageable, though not vanquished. Treatments, prophylaxis, testing and learning exactly how the virus spreads to apply only targeted and effective non-pharmalogical interventions also help.

For COVid we have proneing, high flow nasal cannula, dexamethasone, remdesivir, casirivimab, imdevimab, other improvements that don't make headlines and a pretty full pipeline. Failure of all vaccine would probably have slightly increased the urgency of drugs and other research. Heck we might even have got data about Ivermectin that could convince somebody.

Everybody wants a magic bullet, but the bullets that work 10% of the time are not to be despised. In most cases incremental gains are the vast majority of progress.

murraypaul
Lemon Slice
Posts: 476
Joined: April 9th, 2021, 5:54 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Some perspective

#449767

Postby murraypaul » October 13th, 2021, 10:40 am

U962 wrote:2. How many vax do we give to a person who has already had the disease to which the vax is for - that would be none. Me having the vax would fall under the category of an unnecessary treatment which I think is against doctors oath.

Flu.
3. I know others who have likewise had the virus mildly and then had the vax and ended up in bed for a day plus. and this is acceptable? No it blinking well not acceptable to have a vax where the side effects of the vax are worse than the virus for such people. Indeed do we know of any other vax in the history of vax's that put people in bed ill as a side effect - again no.

I had a worse reaction to the yellow fever vaccine than the covid one.
4. Actually is not a vax within the pre 2021 meaning of the word 'vax'. Indeed the CDC in the USA has now changed its definition of a "vax" from giving immunity to merely giving your "protection'' - so they were lying. It is actually just a therapeutic treatment.


Just like the flu vaccine: (CDC)
CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well influenza (flu) vaccines protect against flu. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines.


Or the Hep B vaccine: (NHS)
The hepatitis B vaccine is very effective. About 9 in every 10 adults who have it develop protection against hepatitis B.


Or, in fact, every vaccine: (CDC)
Vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases, but no vaccine is actually 100% safe or effective for everyone because each person’s body reacts to vaccines differently.


Three categories: those who get the answer and move on, those who inquire and get the above explanation and so far have agreed and move on and then there is the final category who go nuts about how I'm a danger to everyone. They are told to their face to fk off and never contact me ever again - the message is getting round my village pronto it appears.


Yes, I imagine it is.

onthemove
Lemon Slice
Posts: 461
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 585 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Some perspective

#449779

Postby onthemove » October 13th, 2021, 11:22 am

9873210 wrote:
onthemove wrote:But imagine if the vaccines hadn't worked - imagine the results of the trials had come in, and none of them showed any signs of offering protection.

Vaccines were not and are not the only way forward. We still don't have a vaccine for HIV, yet AIDS is manageable, though not vanquished. Treatments, prophylaxis, testing and learning exactly how the virus spreads to apply only targeted and effective non-pharmalogical interventions also help.

For COVid we have proneing, high flow nasal cannula, dexamethasone, remdesivir, casirivimab, imdevimab, other improvements that don't make headlines and a pretty full pipeline. Failure of all vaccine would probably have slightly increased the urgency of drugs and other research. Heck we might even have got data about Ivermectin that could convince somebody.

Everybody wants a magic bullet, but the bullets that work 10% of the time are not to be despised. In most cases incremental gains are the vast majority of progress.


Well done. I'm sure you feel pretty pleased with such a barrage of things to challenge my OP.

Just one slight problem... none of them really challenge the point I was raising.

Firstly, most of the things you mention, even though there was much fanfare about their discovery, when you look in detail at the numbers they are still what most people would call marginal. I don't think anyone expects a 'magic bullet' that is 100% perfect - no medical drug or intervention ever is - but the things you mention are still fairly marginal. Welcome improvements. But still what most lay people would consider marginal.

Secondly, and more importantly in terms of it not affecting the point I was making, the majority of the things you list are hospital interventions... they are things that doctors give or do to patients while they are in hospital. The pressure on the NHS would still be there. The people would still be in hospital, taking up beds. Sure their odds that they may come out the other end may have improved a little. But they'd still be in hospital, taking up beds, with all the need for nurses and doctors dressed up in full PPE, etc.

Even now, in reality even with us having the vaccines, there is *still* supposedly a concern that the NHS could be overwhelmed by covid cases - to b honest I think there is a deliberate element of scaremongering in those concerns - but those concerns do evidence my point that all those things you mention - even with the vaccines - aren't enough to be assured the NHS can cope, and we know that the vaccines are highly effective... so if you take away those highly effective vaccines from a situation where even with them there was doubt the NHS would cope... well, you don't need to do the precise maths to get the idea... without the vaccines the situation would still be very very bad.

Anyway, in essence, reading between the lines, what you seem to be saying is that scientists and doctors are still making progress with non-vaccine related things, so you would still be fully supportive of continuing lockdowns even now, over 20 months on, and still continuing them for the foreseeable future ... (?) (that was the discussion that I was trying to establish with the OP - a difficult discussion which the arrival of the vaccine has conveniently allowed us to side step... for now... but I believe needs to be had in preparation for the next time... but anyway...)

... in other words still mandating strict controls on what people can or can't do in order to manage the pressure on the NHS while herd immunity / herd tolerance builds up. In other words, you seem to be implying that a controlled slow burn of covid through the population would still be *the* overriding priority for government, and the overriding priority as far as the government being able to legislate to control the people.

Seeing how few people getting ill with covid is enough to overwhelm the NHS at any one time, you seem to be implying that legally mandated controls on people's behaviour, their ability to choose which friends they see and when they see them, etc, would be acceptable for quite a while yet ... likely talking another few years at least.

And given, as I mention, that there are even now still fears that the NHS could be overwhelmed even with around 90% of the population now having been vaccinated with 'highly effective' vaccines, I really do feel you're overestimating the benefits of all those non-vaccine related interventions that you mention.

Realistically, if you advocate mandatory legal controls on people's behaviour, you'd be looking at years of controlling the population before covid immunity / tolerance became widespread enough to relax such controls.

And this is effectively the point I'm trying to make / generate discussion on...

Basically how far is it reasonable for the government to legally mandate the behaviour of citizens on an ongoing basis in order to combat a pandemic? Indefinitely? 15 years of not being able to see friends and family? 5 years? 2 yrs?

I know one or two posters have been derogative towards the Swedish model, and seem to be taking it as a read that it's a 'failed' approach. I would strongly disagree, but the poster who said that blocked off reasonable debate by already ridiculing any attempts to justify it.

But right at the beginning, I believe that the Swedes had a point... at the time Boris was telling us that our lockdowns were 'just' going to be for 12 weeks. Whereas the Swedes recognised right up front that there could very well be a need for a longer term strategy, and their approach was based upon the fact that if you let the people see the evidence (not deny covid like Trump!), and let people arrive at their own behavioural changes, then they are more likely to be willing to maintain those changes for the long term. The very essence of a free society.

As it happens, vaccines were developed, so with perfect 20:20 hindsight you could argue that the swedish plan for the longer term was unnecessary. But as the article I reference in my OP shows, that was never a given. The lockdown fanatics just struck lucky.

I would however suggest that even now, today, with the world as it is, Sweden on the whole hasn't done excessively worse. Sure, Sweden admit they made a big mistake with their care homes, and that has significantly worsened their overall numbers. But if you look at the rest of Sweden, away from the car homes, where the population were largely still free to go to shops, meet friends, etc ... almost anything apart from mass crowds /gatherings was technically legally permitted, but Sweden demonstrates that people are intelligent enough to recognise that just because something is legally permitted doesn't mean you should do it as though covid never existed ... I don't believe the outcome in Sweden has been so significantly different enough to justify the enforcement of lockdowns that we have seen in the UK and other countries.

I've also pointed out the inconvenient evidence a few times now... https://www.theguardian.com/uk scroll down to the coronavirus charts... you can see two spikes in the number of cases... both those times the point at which the spike changed to a downwards direction, were both times where we were told the expectation should have been for increased rate in infection. The spike in July reversed around the time compulsory mask wearing was abolished - we were told that was going to lead to a catastrophe in August... in reality the opposite happened. The spike at the end of august reversed when children went back to school - again, we were told that was going to lead to catastrophe... in reality that never happened.

Heck, even the sainted New Zealand has now admitted defeat on their elimination strategy - that didn't work in the end either.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 7378
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1843 times

Re: Some perspective

#449788

Postby redsturgeon » October 13th, 2021, 11:41 am

onthemove wrote:
Heck, even the sainted New Zealand has now admitted defeat on their elimination strategy - that didn't work in the end either.


Heck, I rather be "admitting defeat" at 6 deaths per million population than trumpeting success at over 2,000 deaths per million.

John

onthemove
Lemon Slice
Posts: 461
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 585 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Some perspective

#449794

Postby onthemove » October 13th, 2021, 12:05 pm

redsturgeon wrote:
onthemove wrote:
Heck, even the sainted New Zealand has now admitted defeat on their elimination strategy - that didn't work in the end either.


Heck, I rather be "admitting defeat" at 6 deaths per million population than trumpeting success at over 2,000 deaths per million.

John


New Zealand "admitting defeat" means that they are now at the *start* of the virus spreading around.

6 deaths per million isn't the end result, it's the start state.

In the context of my OP, New Zealand 'admitting defeat' illustrates that without an effective vaccine, New Zealand's strategy was not viable.

And even with a vaccine, it hasn't given them the control they had hoped for - they didn't want to give up on elimination at this moment, they've been forced to choose this option at this moment because elimination wasn't working - they reached the limit of what they were prepared to accept with lockdowns and such like, and that wasn't enough to suppress the virus. There will inevitably be more deaths as a result of this, vs had they successfully continued with elimination until everyone was vaccinated.

Without the vaccines - the realistically alternative hypothetical scenario that I presented for discussion - New Zealand's 'elimination' strategy would have counted for nothing - it would have just drawn out the inevitable for longer while everyone else was getting over it and moving on.

And another thing...

The other aspect that we need to consider was whether New Zealand's policy was rather selfish.

Many of the rapid advancements that have been made, have only been made possible in such a short space of time because of the high level of cases in some countries.

Just look at the Oxford / AZ team... they'd originally expected to have their results in Sep 2020, but that was based on infection estaimates pre-lockdowns, and they got wrong footed when the UK lockdowns suppressed cases and it tool longer to reach the required number of cases in the study groups - eventually only reaching their threshold to get their results in Nov 2020.

If you halve the number of cases, on average you double the time it takes to obtain the required thresholds in vaccine trials and medicine trials, etc. It really is that simple.

At it's most simple, it theoretically means that suppressing the number of infections at any moment in time, wouldn't in theory make any difference to overall outcomes... you'd get the same deaths, etc, overall because the treatments would take proportionately longer to prove, being spread over a longer time. (Though obviously this doesn't take into account the health service getting saturated).

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1922
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 613 times
Been thanked: 738 times

Re: Some perspective

#449812

Postby jfgw » October 13th, 2021, 1:19 pm

redsturgeon wrote:Heck, I rather be "admitting defeat" at 6 deaths per million population than trumpeting success at over 2,000 deaths per million.


And England won the UEFA EURO final against Italy (based upon the half-time score).

Imagine the scenario:
There are no effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.

New Zealand managed to suppress it—for a while. Had they allowed the original virus to spread in a controlled way, their health service could have coped. Those with the weakest immune systems would have tended to be the ones first infected, providing a disproportionately high level of immunity among the population. But they didn't do that, and along comes the delta variant which sweeps across the country. Lots of people get infected at the same time and hospitals overspill into cemeteries.

Speculation, I know, but that is what this thread is about.


Julian F. G. W.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 11247
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 2494 times

Re: Some perspective

#449813

Postby Lootman » October 13th, 2021, 1:27 pm

redsturgeon wrote:
onthemove wrote:Heck, even the sainted New Zealand has now admitted defeat on their elimination strategy - that didn't work in the end either.

Heck, I rather be "admitting defeat" at 6 deaths per million population than trumpeting success at over 2,000 deaths per million.

Depends on the price paid for that. There has been almost no travel in or out of New Zealand for 18 months. In the same time period I have made 4 long-haul trips. New Zealand's solution would not be acceptable to me, and probably not to most UK residents. In fact it is doubtful that their approach could ever have been implemented in the UK, which is a major crossroads for international travel and trade, whereas NZ is on the edge of the world and nobody transits through there on their way elsewhere.

And you are comparing NZ's 99.99% survival rate with the UK's 99.80% survival rate. Is that really such a difference? Even the country with the worst death rate on the planet, Peru, has a 99.5% survival rate. In the grand scheme of things these are minute differences.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 7378
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 1843 times

Re: Some perspective

#449818

Postby redsturgeon » October 13th, 2021, 1:38 pm

Lootman wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:
onthemove wrote:Heck, even the sainted New Zealand has now admitted defeat on their elimination strategy - that didn't work in the end either.

Heck, I rather be "admitting defeat" at 6 deaths per million population than trumpeting success at over 2,000 deaths per million.

Depends on the price paid for that. There has been almost no travel in or out of New Zealand for 18 months. In the same time period I have made 4 long-haul trips. New Zealand's solution would not be acceptable to me, and probably not to most UK residents. In fact it is doubtful that their approach could ever have been implemented in the UK, which is a major crossroads for international travel and trade, whereas NZ is on the edge of the world and nobody transits through there on their way elsewhere.

And you are comparing NZ's 99.99% survival rate with the UK's 99.80% survival rate. Is that really such a difference? Even the country with the worst death rate on the planet, Peru, has a 99.5% survival rate. In the grand scheme of things these are minute differences.


Did I say anything about the UK implementing the NZ scheme? They did what they thought best for them.

Not minute differences if it was you or your mother or wife that died!

John

XFool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7465
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 988 times

Re: Some perspective

#449819

Postby XFool » October 13th, 2021, 1:38 pm

Lootman wrote:And you are comparing NZ's 99.99% survival rate with the UK's 99.80% survival rate. Is that really such a difference? Even the country with the worst death rate on the planet, Peru, has a 99.5% survival rate. In the grand scheme of things these are minute differences.

Well, in "the grand scheme of things" we are all dead. So that's a 100% 'failure' rate. And this year (and last year...) my home hasn't been hit by lightening - so that's a 100% 'success' rate.

Honestly! :roll:
Last edited by XFool on October 13th, 2021, 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

stewamax
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1783
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 2:40 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 441 times

Re: Some perspective

#449829

Postby stewamax » October 13th, 2021, 2:13 pm

U962 wrote:3. I know others who have likewise had the virus mildly and then had the vax and ended up in bed for a day plus. and this is acceptable? No it blinking well not acceptable to have a vax where the side effects of the vax are worse than the virus for such people. Indeed do we know of any other vax in the history of vax's that put people in bed ill as a side effect - again no.

On this basis I should stop being a blood donor:
After donating, I feel a bit giddy for a while (the 15 minute sit-down and tea help)
After donating, my arm aches a bit for a day.
After donating, the point of needle insertion is a bit raw
After donating, there is a small (very small) risk of infection
After donating, I need to stay out of the gym for a few days
After donating, my blood may or many not be used for transfusion.

The downsides to me are as above
The benefit to me of donating is nil.
The benefit to others is potentially great.

So extrapolating your logic I should stop donating.
"This is acceptable? No it blinking well not acceptable" : should U962 ever need A RH+ blood, he or she is free to refuse mine...

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 448
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Some perspective

#449884

Postby 9873210 » October 13th, 2021, 5:11 pm

jfgw wrote:
Imagine the scenario:
There are no effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.

New Zealand managed to suppress it—for a while. Had they allowed the original virus to spread in a controlled way, their health service could have coped. Those with the weakest immune systems would have tended to be the ones first infected, providing a disproportionately high level of immunity among the population. But they didn't do that, and along comes the delta variant which sweeps across the country. Lots of people get infected at the same time and hospitals overspill into cemeteries.

Julian F. G. W.


In this situation NZ would now have the monoclonal anti-bodies and possibly Merck's new antiviral. All of these save lives and will reduce the overload on the health system. Since we're into alternative histories they also had time to train 100,000 new nurses, turn every MD into a respiratory specialist, and build new hospitals.

The problem with your alternate scenario is "spread in a controlled way". Presumably you have something in mind less extreme than moving everybody to North Island and ferrying people to an infected South Island as hospital beds become available. I don't think anything much less extreme is going to work without a vaccine.

Early in the pandemic, before the ICUs became full, I suggested that we should deliberately infect people to make use of the unused capacity. Preferably with the backups for critical jobs. There were no takers.

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 448
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Some perspective

#449886

Postby 9873210 » October 13th, 2021, 5:14 pm

onthemove wrote:Heck, even the sainted New Zealand has now admitted defeat on their elimination strategy - that didn't work in the end either.

New Zealand changed their policy in light of events. One of the events was the development and deployment of the vaccine. Different events, such as no vaccine and the death of two million pomies, may have resulted in public support for different decisions such as an even more ruthless isolation.

You seem to think policy should have been fixed in February 2020 and never changed no matter what happened.

Asking a PM to promise no future lockdown under any circumstances is crazy, any PM that agrees to that is unfit for office.

XFool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7465
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 988 times

Re: Some perspective

#449912

Postby XFool » October 13th, 2021, 6:56 pm

XFool wrote:But these days, on the Internet and elsewhere, there just seems to be so much lunacy around...

Covid: Scientists targeted with abuse during pandemic

BBC News

The Covid-19 pandemic has made celebrities out of scientists, who have graced the daily news headlines and gained large social-media followings.

"But this rise in prominence has come with online abuse and even physical harassment."

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 7761
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 2125 times
Been thanked: 3068 times

Re: Some perspective

#450005

Postby Arborbridge » October 14th, 2021, 7:30 am

9873210 wrote:
onthemove wrote:Heck, even the sainted New Zealand has now admitted defeat on their elimination strategy - that didn't work in the end either.

New Zealand changed their policy in light of events. One of the events was the development and deployment of the vaccine. Different events, such as no vaccine and the death of two million pomies, may have resulted in public support for different decisions such as an even more ruthless isolation.

You seem to think policy should have been fixed in February 2020 and never changed no matter what happened.

Asking a PM to promise no future lockdown under any circumstances is crazy, any PM that agrees to that is unfit for office.


NZ policy might eventually be seen to have failed, but it hasn't yet. Anyone who compares death rates would conclude that NZ has, up until now, been extremely successful. The acid test for them will be what happens when trading and travel gets back to normal - for them, the worst may not yet have come to pass.

Arb.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 7761
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 2125 times
Been thanked: 3068 times

Re: Some perspective

#450007

Postby Arborbridge » October 14th, 2021, 7:40 am

I heard a megahpone loudly haranging passersby to days ago as I walked towards Victoria Station.

As I came closer, I would see that it was a man ranting - and that's the only word to apply to this continuous stream of almost unintelligible shouting - about the evils of the program to vaccinate children.

Oh dear, he made himself look like an extreme nutter and the lady with him didn't get many takers for the leaflet she was giving out.

Whether there is any logic to the anti-vax argument, I haven't seen any yet, but people like that do not help their cause. Fortunately, the vast majority of the UK population are having no truck with false logic based on selective info. They aren't fooled for a moment.

As regards school children, people I know are not anti, but just frustrated that it isn't happening fast enough - in some places not at all just yet. Most parents know the benefits of vaccination and go for it wholeheartedly.
And as for anti-social types refusing to wear masks on some sort of misguided principle? I would say mask wearing is still high, and if I enter a premises where the owners have requests that I wear one, I do. I feel it's good etiquette and does me no harm, so I cannot see any reason not to. It would be the height of bad manners to go into someone's place and not wear a mask in those circumstances, whatever your private feeling on the matter.


Arb.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: daveh and 2 guests