look wrote:mild symptoms, can be treated at home.
Hospitalisations in Gauteng are up nearly 5-fold in 2 weeks :
Thanks to jfgw,Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh, for Donating to support the site
look wrote:mild symptoms, can be treated at home.
zico wrote:People in the media making evidence-free claims that Omicron is milder are the same people who made (again, evidence-free) predictions
Adamski wrote:Botswana's health director says majority of Omicron variant cases were asymptomatic.
[... ]
I understand being careful for the vulnerable, and getting jabbed, but putting the brakes on the economy for asymptomatic and mild cases seems bonkers.
Midsmartin wrote:Adamski wrote:Botswana's health director says majority of Omicron variant cases were asymptomatic.
[... ]
I understand being careful for the vulnerable, and getting jabbed, but putting the brakes on the economy for asymptomatic and mild cases seems bonkers.
You may be right, but a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data.
What if the variant is mainly in a local population that's aged under 30, and not comparable? What if it has not been around long enough for the serious cases to show up yet, as this takes a few weeks?
onthemove wrote:Prior to covid, it was generally assumed that the next pandemic would come from a new variant of the flu.
Funny thing is, we didn't put in place all these sorts of measures 'just in case', each time a new flu variant appeared.
onthemove wrote:Prior to covid, the retort..
.. "...a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data." ...
...would be a good rationale for why governments typically don't knee jerk put the brakes on the economy at the first sign of a new flu variant.
XFool wrote:onthemove wrote:Prior to covid, it was generally assumed that the next pandemic would come from a new variant of the flu.
Funny thing is, we didn't put in place all these sorts of measures 'just in case', each time a new flu variant appeared.
We have for years now had a flu vaccination programme. Also, I have little doubt that every season the current flu situation is monitored by medical bodies for signs a new, virulent strain of flu might emerge threatening a global influenza pandemic.onthemove wrote:Prior to covid, the retort..
.. "...a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data." ...
...would be a good rationale for why governments typically don't knee jerk put the brakes on the economy at the first sign of a new flu variant.
During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.
But that's just my opinion. Other opinions are available.
Flu
Flu is usually most infectious from the day your symptoms start and for a further 3 to 7 days.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questi ... infection/
"The text below summarizes the novel influenza A viruses that are currently most concerning to public health officials...
...
Many Asian H7N9 virus infected patients have had severe respiratory illness. During the past five annual epidemics of Asian H7N9 virus infections in people, the mortality rate in hospitalized patients has averaged about 40 percent."
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resour ... ncern.html
XFool wrote:During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.
onthemove wrote:XFool wrote:But that's just my opinion. Other opinions are available.
A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).
B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').
C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).
onthemove wrote:I would suggest you are wrong on all these counts, but your response doesn't really make rational sense unless we presume that you do believe at least one or more of them to be true.
onthemove wrote:So just for completeness I'll address each point...
Option A
The NHS seems to agree with me the flu is infectious.
onthemove wrote:Option B
As far as I'm aware scientists DO monitor the flu situation for " for signs a new, virulent strain of flu might emerge threatening a global influenza pandemic", and similar to how there have been a number of 'variants of concern' for covid, I believe that they DO identify similar variants of flu quite frequently as well.
See for example from the US CDC..."The text below summarizes the novel influenza A viruses that are currently most concerning to public health officials...
...
Many Asian H7N9 virus infected patients have had severe respiratory illness. During the past five annual epidemics of Asian H7N9 virus infections in people, the mortality rate in hospitalized patients has averaged about 40 percent."
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resour ... ncern.html
Option C
What! ... are you telling me that it was microchips they were injecting into us after all!
onthemove wrote:I'm pretty sure you are well aware of the covid vaccination program and the degree to which it has been rolled out in the UK. Not to mention, that the covid vaccine is typically considered more effective than the seasonal flu vaccine!
Summary...XFool wrote:During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.
I'd agree we seem to be in different realities.
onthemove wrote:You raise 3 points in your argument - you mention a flu vaccine program, covid being infectious, and you mention emerging strains. I've provided evidence that all of these are also applicable to both flu and covid.
I've provided evidence from the real world to back up my reality.
Over to you...
XFool wrote:Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.
(At least he didn't use "formal logic"...)
XFool wrote:During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.
onthemove wrote:A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).
B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').
C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).
XFool wrote:Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.
"AstraZeneca has started to move away from providing its Covid-19 vaccine to countries on a not-for-profit basis.
The drugs giant has signed a series of for-profit agreements for next year, and expects to make a modest income from the vaccine, it said.
The company had previously said it would only start to make money from the vaccine when Covid-19 was no longer a pandemic.
Its chief executive Pascal Soriot said the disease was becoming endemic." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59256223
"Professor Paul Hunter, an epidemiologist at the University of East Anglia, told Sky News the modelling suggests the UK is close to 'endemic equilibrium'.
"Once you reach endemic equilibrium, non-pharmaceutical interventions (social distancing and mask wearing) stop having much of an effect."
He said the main reason behind this is immunity levels." https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-cas ... s-12444117
Scientist >> "Boris, Boris... quick, look at this... we've got a new variant of concern... there's a risk that it might put HUGE pressure on the health service and cost lives...but we don't have data yet, it could go either way and may turn out to be nothing of concern"
Boris >> "Wait, hang on a moment, are we talking covid?"
Scientists >> "No, we're talking flu".
Boris >> "Few, thank goodness for that, we can just wait and see then and don't need to tank the economy!"
9873210 wrote:onthemove wrote:A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).
B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').
C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).
All of these questions have non-binary answers. Some people believe all questions have binary answers and are afraid the virus will use the wrong public toilet.
onthemove wrote:9873210 wrote:onthemove wrote:A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).
B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').
C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).
All of these questions have non-binary answers. Some people believe all questions have binary answers and are afraid the virus will use the wrong public toilet.
Care to elaborate on any of those non-binary answers, and explain therefore how they work to support the argument being made?
I'm not the one making these points ... I'm the one responding to someone who made these points seemingly to back up their own argument.
onthemove wrote:If there is some nuance in those points that allows them to still back up their argument, it would be jolly helpful if they, or someone, could actually expand on them and explain how they backup their point.
I was just responding to the argument as presented.
XFool wrote:I don't see what the problem is.
Currently, we are in the middle of a global pandemic due to a novel coronavirus.
This virus is dangerous to many vulnerable people, infectious...
...especially given the recent emergence of a new and apparently more infectious version...
...against an infectious virus that spreads via the respiratory system
XFool wrote:Help!
Can somebody blessed with more understanding that myself please help me to try and understand how it is that more than one person posting on these boards has continuing difficulty understanding the meaning of the following (and similar) statements:Currently, we are in the middle of a global pandemic due to a novel coronavirus.
This virus is dangerous to many vulnerable people, infectious...
...especially given the recent emergence of a new and apparently more infectious version...
...against an infectious virus that spreads via the respiratory system
To me they appear to be written in simple English. Am I wrong? Perhaps they are really written in a particularly obscure version of Chinese and I am failing to recognise this?
Help! Anybody...
dealtn wrote:Might that also not have been said by yourself on previous occasions the world was also exposed to an infectious global event that dangerously exposed vulnerable people? Did you say those things (and others) at the time? If not why not?
dealtn wrote: What is different?
dealtn wrote:What will be different in the future when similar events occur?
XFool wrote:Help!
Can somebody blessed with more understanding that myself please help me to try and understand how it is that more than one person posting on these boards has continuing difficulty understanding the meaning of the following (and similar) statements:Currently, we are in the middle of a global pandemic due to a novel coronavirus.
This virus is dangerous to many vulnerable people, infectious...
...especially given the recent emergence of a new and apparently more infectious version...
...against an infectious virus that spreads via the respiratory system
To me they appear to be written in simple English. Am I wrong? Perhaps they are really written in a particularly obscure version of Chinese and I am failing to recognise this?
Help! Anybody...
XFool wrote:No, onthemove, all of them are your "points", not mine not anybody else's that I can see. You made all of them in your own post.
XFool wrote:Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.
"AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blo ... -outbreak/ "
onthemove wrote:If you want to convince people of your argument, you need to find something that is different.
Covid is infectious, yes, but so is the flu.
Covid kills people, yes, but so does the flu.
Covid spawns variants, yes, but so does the flu.
The NHS is close to capacity as it pretty much is every winter, so a new covid strain might put more pressure on it, yes, but then so could a new flu strain.
onthemove wrote:You now seem to have shifted from bluntly saying 'it's infectious' to now focussing on being in a 'pandemic'...
onthemove wrote:XFool wrote:Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.
But again, you've not said what it is about a "pandemic" that backs up your position.
onthemove wrote:So here we go round the merry go round again...
onthemove wrote:Again, I'm going to go out on a limb because you haven't provided any rationale in your argument, but here goes...----"AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blo ... -outbreak/ "
You are now saying that your argument is valid, because we are in a 'pandemic'.
Why does that make any difference? Why does it matter what other countries are doing?
onthemove wrote:Imagine if early on, the rest of the world had managed to eradicate covid, but we hadn't, and the rest of the world had decided to isolate us.
And imagine that the Omicron variant had evolved here in the UK rather than elsewhere, but in every other respect the UK were in the same position.
Are you saying this would change your argument?
That we then wouldn't then need to trash the economy 'just in case' this omicron variant is more dangerous, etc?
onthemove wrote:Let's not forget, the WHO was criticised early on for dragging their feet over whether to declare it a 'pandemic'. In a way, declaring a pandemic is almost akin to labelling something 'big'.
In essence it doesn't really mean an awful lot - in essence the only real factor from differentiating 'endemic' from 'pandemic' is that the latter refers to occurring in multiple countries. (See definition in link above - it literally is the only differentiating factor that it mentions)
So it's still rather difficult to understand why you mean when you now say that we're justified to put the brakes on the economy because 'it's a pandemic'.
Why does it matter what is going on in other countries - particularly when the variant is already here - in terms of what we do here?
If we were in exactly the same situation as we are now in the UK, but without any other countries having covid, then it wouldn't be labelled a pandemic. So why do you now say that we are justified putting the brakes on the economy? Which after all is where this argument started : https://lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=462652#p462652
Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: Steveam and 14 guests