 Poster: A snowHead
|
@rob@rar,
| Quote: |
| it also buys time for the development of |
an effective track, test and trace capability.
Oh. Merde. *
* Not just the UK, but the UK does seem to have made the bigger cack hand of it ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| boyanr wrote: |
| I gave the facts earlier - the full lockdowns in Spain, UK or France limited the timespan of the wave to about 2 months. No lockdown in Sweden had a 3 month wave. |
If you're based in Sweden you'll know that it's incorrect to suggest there was "no lockdown" if by that you would like to imply zero changes in social contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@rob@rar,
| Quote: |
| it also buys time for the development of |
an effective track, test and trace capability. |
Yes, that as well. It's a novel virus, with much that we don't know about it. All the time we buy by mitigating its spread, so that fewer people get sick and fewer die before we'd expect them to, is time we can use to learn about it and develop effective tools and strategies to exercise some control over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Lots of comments about Sweden, so worth reminding ourselves what their chief epidemiologist said:
| Anders Tignell wrote: |
| I want to make it clear, no, we did not lock down like many other countries, but we definitely had a virtual lockdown. Swedes changed their behaviour enormously. We stopped travelling even more than our neighbouring countries. The airports had no flights anywhere, the trains were running at a few per cent of normal service, so there were enormous changes in society. |
This is a quick graphical comparison of interventions from the Our World in Data project at Oxford University.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
When I talk about lockdown I mean inability to travel even if you want to, to go out of your home freely when and where you want to, to go to work because your industry is not allowed to work and so forth. Online schooling, wearing a mask in the bus, etc. is not a lockdown. I can go to Austria (for the time being) with a negative PCR – this is a measurement that potentially keeps Austrians safer, limit the spread of the virus, yet still allows them to run their business and me to get some ski time. Closing the ski zones and ordering people to stay at home for months however is what I am advocating against. All I am saying is people should be allowed to travel, and go go with their life, with measures being more targeted and focused. It's like in surgery - we don't just amputate anymore, we use super precise machinery to fix the problem without even cutting you open, if possible. The new antigen test cost like 5 eur wholesale and can be carried out by non-professionals, while they are almost as effective as the PCR. Instead of stopping people from travelling you can just test them out on entrance, instead of forcing resorts to close down, you can ask that they test their staff every week or so.
Furthermore, it is even more stupid to force those 10-20% that have already went through the virus and have immunity to stay at home... There are 20-stg documented reinfection cases out of 40 mln. - I think we can accept this risk and let those people be free?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| boyanr wrote: |
| When I talk about lockdown I mean inability to travel even if you want to, to go out of your home freely when and where you want to, to go to work because your industry is not allowed to work and so forth. Online schooling, wearing a mask in the bus, etc. is not a lockdown. |
As I said, absolutism.
The word "lockdown" is pretty unhelpful as it means different things to different people, including those who want no restrictions other than hand-washing and (reluctant) mask-wearing. To suggest that lockdowns don't work is absurd on a number of levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@rob@rar, did we shut society off for measles or did we accept the risk and carry on whilst developing treatments and a vaccine as we went?
@queenie pretty please, mea culpa: it's 0.35% and will likely drop as more tests are carried out. But then again, the tests all run in different ways and the false +ves have already been discussed... secondly we are still recording anyone who died within 28 days of a +ve C19 test as a 'with C19' death which is meaningless for many.
Here's the link: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/
@snowdave, no: the 60% to which I refer was the total beds across the NHS. Remember the Nightingale hospitals which were barely used? The ventilators (£500 million-worth) which weren't used? As for the NHS being swamped: this is utter b ollocks. It simply wasn't. ITU and similar may've been hammered but given virtually all elective cases were cancelled and ED admissions went through the floor I can tell you it's not true. 111 increased initially then dropped off sharply. The idea the ambulances services were overwhelmed is also b ollocks: the LAS had massive mutual aid from other areas which were quiet and had about two jobs per day. During C19 when millions were sitting on their fat back bottoms I was working in a part of the NHS that was positioned between 999, 111 and ED so it's just not true. The myth that we were all sweating away and stacking the dead in the corridors is propaganda, all the clapping and rainbows: will they be doing that in six months when all the other deaths start to climb inexorably and you still can't even walk in through the door of your GP surgery?
Here are the links: shorturl.at/bJR19, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-the-nhs-was-not-overrun-by-covid-during-lockdown
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boyanr wrote: |
When I talk about lockdown I mean inability to travel even if you want to, to go out of your home freely when and where you want to, to go to work because your industry is not allowed to work and so forth. Online schooling, wearing a mask in the bus, etc. is not a lockdown. I can go to Austria (for the time being) with a negative PCR – this is a measurement that potentially keeps Austrians safer, limit the spread of the virus, yet still allows them to run their business and me to get some ski time. Closing the ski zones and ordering people to stay at home for months however is what I am advocating against. All I am saying is people should be allowed to travel, and go go with their life, with measures being more targeted and focused. It's like in surgery - we don't just amputate anymore, we use super precise machinery to fix the problem without even cutting you open, if possible. The new antigen test cost like 5 eur wholesale and can be carried out by non-professionals, while they are almost as effective as the PCR. Instead of stopping people from travelling you can just test them out on entrance, instead of forcing resorts to close down, you can ask that they test their staff every week or so.
Furthermore, it is even more stupid to force those 10-20% that have already went through the virus and have immunity to stay at home... There are 20-stg documented reinfection cases out of 40 mln. - I think we can accept this risk and let those people be free? |
FWIW 1. Assuming you are British you can currently travel to Austria without a test, the only issue is travelling back to the UK
2. It seems highly likely Austria will have some form of lockdown again in November precisely to buy the time to allow tourism to function over Christmas
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| boobleblooble wrote: |
| @rob@rar, did we shut society off for measles or did we accept the risk and carry on whilst developing treatments and a vaccine as we went? |
Completely different virus, completely different scenario, pointless comparison.
What do you think the outcome would have been this year if there were no attempts to control the spread of the infection other than hands, face, space or whatever the stupid ditty is? 65,000 excess deaths in a three month period with more restrictions on social contact than we have ever seen in this country. Care to point to a time when measles had that impact (to make a stupid comparison)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@boobleblooble, except that the link you provide shows rates between 0.24% and 6.82% with only an estimated IFR of 0.35%.
Perhaps it's better to look at concluded outcomes, which according to Worldometers shows a death rate worldwide of around 3%. It's not clear if concluded outcomes is including people who may still be suffering from 'long Covid'. Plus of course there are the people who are deemed to have 'recovered' yet now have long-term organ damage and reduced quality of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@rob@rar, no it's not: we accepted that some children would die as we had ineffective treatments and no vaccine. The virus was and is highly infectious but we didn't stop children from attending school and playing with one another, we accepted the risk. Chickenpox also comes with the possibility of Group A strep. infection which can be lethal yet we carry on every year.
Flu kills tens of thousands every year and we barely notice. TB kills 1.5 million annually quite happily and we don't turn the world off.
Going by official data the number of C19 deaths dropped shortly after mass house arrest and it's likely the cases peaked before then (see Spectator article). We now have a new illness which comes every season and will have to cope as we did before. Out of interest, what do you propose? Endless cycles of restrictions then release? Masks for years? Are you really happy to have the gov't control the number of guests you can have for Xmas even though the evidence is more and more that these restrictions are futile?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@boobleblooble, are you an immunologist? A virologist? And epidemiologist? Do you have a PhD in any medical field? If the answer is no to all of these questions, then you are really not qualified to make these comments and I shall consider them worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boobleblooble wrote: |
@rob@rar, no it's not: we accepted that some children would die as we had ineffective treatments and no vaccine. The virus was and is highly infectious but we didn't stop children from attending school and playing with one another, we accepted the risk. Chickenpox also comes with the possibility of Group A strep. infection which can be lethal yet we carry on every year.
Flu kills tens of thousands every year and we barely notice. TB kills 1.5 million annually quite happily and we don't turn the world off. |
As I said, completely different scenario, existing infections for which we have had years of experience of mitigating the impacts of, compared to a novel virus which has hit the world like a runaway truck.
| boobleblooble wrote: |
| Going by official data the number of C19 deaths dropped shortly after mass house arrest and it's likely the cases peaked before then (see Spectator article). |
Sure, restrictions on social movement stopped the growth, and very quickly started to drive down the numbers. With respect, a right-wing publication with it's own Covid agenda is not something I think much attention should be paid to when looking at the epidemiology. I'll dig out a reference to a recently published scientific paper which has attempted to quantify the impact of social restrictions and I'll posy it here.
| boobleblooble wrote: |
| Out of interest, what do you propose? Endless cycles of restrictions then release? Masks for years? Are you really happy to have the gov't control the number of guests you can have for Xmas even though the evidence is more and more that these restrictions are futile? |
Not an absolutist/defeatist argument that's for certain. What I propose is the least amount if social contact restrictions necessary to stop the virus running out of control until such a time that vaccines and improvements in therapeutic treatments are able to control the spread an impact of SARS-CoV-2 to the point where it is similar to the impacts of something like the flu. We are already seeing significant improvements in outcomes because of improved therapeutic treatments, and I believe that we will see initial deployment early in the New Year of what will become an effective vaccination programme. We'll never eradicate Covid, but I'm confident we will be able to control it to an acceptable level of impact. Until then we shouldn't be stupid and give up the fight, because the outcome of doing that won't be acceptable to the vast majority of the public.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Wed 28-10-20 11:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| How did you conclude that? My statement was: I doubt the vaccines will remove Covid-19 from the face of the earth. |
OK, do you think that a vaccination programme with one or more vaccines will allow us to gain control of the virus so that the level of infection doesn’t spiral out of control and the number of people who get ill, and the number who die will be at levels which are acceptable (as they are with flu)? |
Do you have any evidence supporting that? |
Sorry, not quite sure what you mean? I asked a question, I didn’t make a statement. |
Well - i asked you a question! I have no idea about what the vaccines do, and what the impact will be either, and i don’t claim to be an expert - but for measles it didn’t remove it from planet Earth, and i doubt it will be the case with Covid-19 - but What are your opinion ? |
Do you think the only measure of success of a vaccine (or a combination of vaccines) is to completely eradicate the virus from the Earth? I only ask as that seemed the implication of your earlier statement about Covid vaccines, and I was wondering when you said that you therefore thought that we shouldn’t bother with vaccines, and should give up hope that they will do any good. |
Never stated that - a vaccine will be good for the group of People at risk - I don’t consider myself at risk, so i am not sure i will a vaccine at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| DanishRider wrote: |
| I don’t consider myself at risk, so i am not sure i will a vaccine at this point. |
Shame on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@queenie pretty please, you're clearly not a scientist otherwise you'd understand the weakness of an argument from authority and also that 'expert opinion' is one of the worst forms of evidence. You might also understand that there are differing opinions on C19 amongst scientists despite the backlash against those who decry the panic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| I don’t consider myself at risk, so i am not sure i will a vaccine at this point. |
Shame on you. |
Why ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| boobleblooble wrote: |
| for a few tens of thousands of deaths virtually all of our freedoms are to be thrown away ... |
Do you still hold on to your original premise, now that the death total has reached over 60,000? If you still think this is 'a few', then how many people have to die before you'd regard it as significant? 200,000? 300,000? What? If you're happy to see indefinite numbers of people whom you regard as of no significance die so you can go an your ski holiday then why not be honest and say so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@rob@rar, what silly hyperbole. Speaking of "runaway trucks" road accidents killed 1.5 million people in 2016. Look at the numbers for God's sake, they're all here: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. Look at how many other things kill people! What'll you do, ban smoking, drinking and driving on the roads?!
Yes and despite years of practice measles still killed children! We have had infectious diseases for years and through worse pandemics yet we had to continue: hiding indoors was not an option.
Ah, I see. It's all about what you consider "acceptable". However you feel that you have the right to impose your version of "acceptable" on others to the extent that they cannot even marry with more than a few tens of family and friends and must die of cancer and other diseases without complaint. You're a coward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DanishRider wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| I don’t consider myself at risk, so i am not sure i will a vaccine at this point. |
Shame on you. |
Why ? |
Because you're riding on the backs of those people who aren't too scared to be vaccinated. Vaccination is not just a private good, it is a public good. You might not be in a high risk group of becoming ill with Covid, but you are in a high risk group of passing that infection on unintentionally, including to those people who are in a high risk group. If you refuse to be vaccinated because you are frightened of potential side effects you aren't playing your part in helping to control this.
Shame on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| boobleblooble wrote: |
@rob@rar, what silly hyperbole. Speaking of "runaway trucks" road accidents killed 1.5 million people in 2016. Look at the numbers for God's sake, they're all here: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. Look at how many other things kill people! What'll you do, ban smoking, drinking and driving on the roads?!
Yes and despite years of practice measles still killed children! We have had infectious diseases for years and through worse pandemics yet we had to continue: hiding indoors was not an option.
Ah, I see. It's all about what you consider "acceptable". However you feel that you have the right to impose your version of "acceptable" on others to the extent that they cannot even marry with more than a few tens of family and friends and must die of cancer and other diseases without complaint. You're a coward. |
And you accuse me of hyperbole? Laughing my socks off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@LaForet, 60,000? I don't know where you found that figure. Do you not know that around ten thousand people die every week in the UK anyway? Do you really think that the death toll with get to hundreds of thousands? The made-up numbers from the start of the pandemic that caused the scare have now been thoroughly laughed at as they were b ollocks. And PLEASE don't come with the 'lockdown worked' routine. If that's the case then why did Peru, Belgium, Italy et al have such high death rates despite ferocious quarantines?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| I don’t consider myself at risk, so i am not sure i will a vaccine at this point. |
Shame on you. |
Why ? |
Because you're riding on the backs of those people who aren't too scared to be vaccinated. Vaccination is not just a private good, it is a public good. You might not be in a high risk group of becoming ill with Covid, but you are in a high risk group of passing that infection on unintentionally, including to those people who are in a high risk group. If you refuse to be vaccinated because you are frightened of potential side effects you aren't playing your part in helping to control this.
Shame on you. |
Hang on one sec, whilst I am on the lockdown and vaccinate side of the argument as a whole I think that's a bit strong.
For all we know at the moment the official policy once a vaccine is available could be vaccinate the vulnerable and those who deal with them whilst everyone else gets on with it (much like flu each year). So it's a bit soon to start trying to shame folk.
IF the vaccine proves safe and effective AND advice based on evidence is that we should all get it for societal good, AND some then refuse and fly in the face of the evidence and advice, THEN maybe it's time to start calling those people out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| DanishRider wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DanishRider wrote: |
| I don’t consider myself at risk, so i am not sure i will a vaccine at this point. |
Shame on you. |
Why ? |
The whole point of any vaccination programme is that it needs a high take-up by everyone to be effective, and reach herd immunity - the point where the unvaccinated, or those whose resistance has declined, is a small enough % of the population that new outbreaks don't spread further.
With H1N1 Spanish 'Flu it took years to reach herd immunity, through repeated cycles of re-infection and a lot of deaths. Inoculation programmes push the population past the herd immunity point. So they need people like you to participate in order to get there. Even if you think the odds of contracting it are low and the odds of it being serious for you are even lower, getting vaccinated will be beneficial in two ways.
Firstly, you're actually helping those who are vulnerable from contracting it in the first place. Secondly, and of importance for everyone, it will help avoid repeated cycles of countermeasures that hurt the economy and jobs.
@midgetbiker 'vaccinate the vulnerable and those who deal with them whilst everyone else gets on with it
Not necessarily. There will be a tactical decision to make because you can't fully isolate the vulnerable. This is like putting all your artworks in one room in your house to 'isolate' them when you have a fire. There's an argument for targeting (a) worst spreaders and yes (b) the most vulnerable first, but then in any next tranche targeting the next tier of spreaders before the next tier of vulnerable. A quite complicated strategy may be needed.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Wed 28-10-20 11:52; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| Hang on one sec, whilst I am on the lockdown and vaccinate side of the argument as a whole I think that's a bit strong. |
I don't think so. He's arguing that we should not attempt to control the virus by restrictions on social contact and says he won't have the vaccine because he's not in an at risk group. I think that's shameful. It's just an opinion, of course, so other people will have their own opinions, but I don't think it's too strong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| boobleblooble wrote: |
| Do you not know that around ten thousand people die every week in the UK anyway? |
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the 'Much worse things happen' argument. Much worse things do happen. Lots of people die every week (9,529 this week in 2018 in UK - ONS). Of all sorts of things. All over the world. But I don't see the linkage - just because people die of other causes, this is no justification for avoiding unnecessary deaths here and now.
And you still haven't answered my question - at what level do epidemic deaths warrant the countermeasures that you object to?
Anyway your first and core premise is that the Covid death figures are made-up to justify sinister actions by the government: from this everything else flows. If the figures are made-up then yes, it's a government conspiracy. If it's a conspiracy then yes, the measures are unwarranted and damaging and yes, they must serve the purposes of a sinister cabal.
You won't be surprised that I don't agree with the conspiracy theory.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Wed 28-10-20 12:21; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@queenie pretty please, he may well not be a virologist but the numbers quoted are accurate nevertheless and the point made that we have always accepted that people die of infections is a valid one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone retitle this thread please so people interested in going skiing don’t click on it by mistake?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| Hang on one sec, whilst I am on the lockdown and vaccinate side of the argument as a whole I think that's a bit strong. |
I don't think so. He's arguing that we should not attempt to control the virus by restrictions on social contact and says he won't have the vaccine because he's not in an at risk group. I think that's shameful. It's just an opinion, of course, so other people will have their own opinions, but I don't think it's too strong. |
I don't agree with his/her argument on lockdown/contact at all (though I do acknowledge that it is a point of view, and one that is been given fuel in social media due to it's 'suppression' in MSM).
As for the vaccine what I'm saying is that his/her views may yet prove to be the long term official policy. It almost certainly will be the way any vaccine is introduced into use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Back on topic I posted this in one of the other threads on this subject but thought I'd share it here too.
| robboj wrote: |
As I've said before on a number of occasions I've long since adopted the view that I won't ski abroad this winter and right now nothing I can see will change that. In fact I don't think it's seemed less likely since early April.
In very simple terms I think that the Alpine countries are going to have to make a decision on whether they want their entire winter tourism sector to survive or not. When I say entire I expect that some ski tourism reliant businesses will be ok if they lost the entire season whereas others would be bust by Christmas and they need to consider what the ratio of those two extremes might be. They also cannot think that its just about making it through until 21/22, this could go on for years so they need to make a plan asap.
I think this is different to to the situation with 'hot weather' holidays which have a geographically much wider and more general market that is in the main lower value and thus lower impact financially and also much longer in duration, literally 24/7/365 if you look worldwide. I'm not sure what % annually of ski holidays happen in the antipodes and the southern end of South America but I'd be amazed if its even 10% of the world market. This is a NH industry of essentially 4 months duration concentrated in a very few countries and parts thereof.
They have to create a set of rules that allows all the operators to let people to book with certainty that they can have their holiday or their money back, right up until the last minute.
The nightmare scenario IMHO is one where I'm apparently fine but test positive on arrival and am then put in quarantine for 14 days. No holiday, misery and isolation for me and for my partner who then has an equally miserable week and flight home on her own. The only current means of avoiding this scenario is simply not to have an alpine ski holiday this winter.
It is in the press today that as far as the UK is concerned (and I suspect this also applies to the Alpine countries) that travel is now Covid19 neutral. i.e. an individual is not going to be a greater risk by travelling from one country to another.
What might work is if the countries and ALL the businesses that rely on the ski holiday industry agree on a set procedure where I can either have my holiday or my money back. Yes I know there is devil in the detail but as long as its fair and equitable to each party it can be done. If theres a premium for that then fair enough, like anything else the market will decide if its value for money or not. In general I suspect most people whom normally have an alpine ski holiday will be sitting on the cash to afford it if for no other reason than they've had little else to spend it on for months now.
Its really up to them all now. In particular governments. If they persist with the current appendage measuring "my restrictions are longer/better/tougher etc than yours" games then even if we do go in 21/22 a lot of what we last saw in 19/20 will be tumbleweed.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| As for the vaccine what I'm saying is that his/her views may yet prove to be the long term official policy. |
Isn't his view that he won't be vaccinated regardless of whether the vaccine is appropriate for him? There will undoubtedly be people for whom the vaccine is not advised, but I don't think that's what we are talking about here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| As for the vaccine what I'm saying is that his/her views may yet prove to be the long term official policy. |
Isn't his view that he won't be vaccinated regardless of whether the vaccine is appropriate for him? There will undoubtedly be people for whom the vaccine is not advised, but I don't think that's what we are talking about here. |
Maybe, and at that point I would be critical if that was his/her stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| As for the vaccine what I'm saying is that his/her views may yet prove to be the long term official policy. |
Isn't his view that he won't be vaccinated regardless of whether the vaccine is appropriate for him? There will undoubtedly be people for whom the vaccine is not advised, but I don't think that's what we are talking about here. |
Maybe, and at that point I would be critical if that was his/her stance. |
It's what I read from his post. If I misread it in anyway then I offer unreserved apologies, but I can't see where he says he's unable to have a vaccine only that he is likely to decide not to have a vaccine because he is not in a high risk category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Oh dear. This was a good thread, now derailed by COVID-deniers. Do you also think that the moon landings were fake, and that the earth is flat? Will you be queuing up for a vaccine next summer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| lynnecha wrote: |
| Can someone retitle this thread please so people interested in going skiing don’t click on it by mistake? |
I knw snowheads is the land of the miserable old b*llocks isn't it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Anyway, I've booked our crossings on Eurotunnel for mid Jan outbound to Switzerland's 4 Vallées, returning a month later.
We'r not worried about having to quarantine on the return, just whether it'll still ne be necessary on arrival in CH, and of course, whether our travel insurance cover will be available (and credible) for the trip. As it stands, I don't think that staying in our own apartment up a mountain will be any riskier than being at home in the UK. But let's see.
(Although you know that Eurotunnel is part of a secret cabal and there is actually a subterranean land bridge across the Channel next to the tunnel itself that is used by George Soros and his elite conspirators under the guise of an international pizza corporation that has ordered child-size freight boxes to move the kids of Snowheads subscribers to a satanic centre in the Alps and that you only need to read the Spectator to see the breadcrumbs in their article about covid ...)
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 28-10-20 12:43; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LaForet wrote: |
And you still haven't answered my question - at what level do epidemic deaths warrant the countermeasures that you object to? |
At what levels do unemployment numbers have to reach before you start to object to the counter measures?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As usual, some interesting and useful contributions, and some of the regular rubbish, mainly from those who don't like their cosy little lives being affected.
Might as well add my two penn'orth.
Some idiots are still comparing this virus to flu. Apart from similarities in the way it spreads and a few symtoms, they have absolutely nothing in common.
As for the comparisons of annual deaths, you might as well compare a darts score to football. You can't.
The WHO have absolutely no idea of how many deaths are caused by Flu. It is an guestimate as a % of the Population.
Even in developed countries, when someone has flu and is admitted to hospital, it is usually because of complications. If they die of the complication, eg pneumonia, flu is never mentioned as a contributing factor on the death certificate.
Many Countries of the world don't have the infrastructure to record Births and Deaths accurately, let alone the reasons for death. Millions die every day without any medical diagnosis.
The total number of the world's population that have been infected with Covid is still only a tiny fraction, so we can't compare to any other disease/virus that has been in circulation for years, even Centuries. Many people have natural immunity to some of these. Vaccines help to keep the spread in check.
What we do know about Covid is that a significant number of those infected will require hospitalisation, and of those, a significant number will die. A surprisingly high number of these will have been "fit and healthy". I am not going to get into a discussion of rates, .01% is too many.
Thankfully, we are slowly learning ways of reducing deaths.
@boobleblooble, Your comment about including anyone who dies within 28 days of a test being included in the figures is valid, as many would have died anyway. However, I would sooner they be included in the stats than excluded. This will counter the cases where Covid had been present, but no test was carried out. Even if it was a heart attack, this could have been caused by the stress of Covid on the body. Plus, they might have stood a better chance of survival if there were less acute cases.
There are also a number of comments from people who are clearly anti-vaccine, despite the fact that they probably had all their inoculation as children thanks to their diligent parents.
Just for the record, VACCINES WORK!!
Smallpox in a killer!
Measles is a killer!
Chicken Pox is a killer!
TB is a killer!
If they don't kill you, they can cause lifelong health problems
The human race has only managed to eradicate one virus - Smallpox. This one was chosen as it was the biggest killer. It took over 40 years of concerted effort and cooperation to do so, and involved imunisation of the entire planet.
No mean feat bearing in mind the infrastructure in communications and travel when they started the project!
We could do the same with any virus if we wished. However, we now have the anti-vax brigade, (most of whome would have had theirs!) who are intent on preventing common sense.
Thanks to these idiots, many of these viruses are now on the rise.
TB was practicaly eradicated in the UK, such that, approx 10 years ago, the vaccine was no longer given to teenagers.
Thanks mainly to an influx of residents from Eastern Europe, where there have been no inoculations, and it is endemic in the population, it is now getting a hold on the UK population again. Thanks to short-sightedness, we now have a generation that are not immune, and who will suffer the consequences in the coming years.
In my view, in the interests of public health, inoculation against certain viruses should be compulsory for ALL residents AND visitors.
Many people on here will have travelled to, what used to be, remote parts of the world. Certain countries only allowed entry with up to date inoculations. Many still do. If you are wiling to comply for your travels, what possible objection can you have to reciprocal arrangements.
| boyanr wrote: |
Furthermore, it is even more stupid to force those 10-20% that have already went through the virus and have immunity to stay at home... There are 20-stg documented reinfection cases out of 40 mln. - I think we can accept this risk and let those people be free? |
Firstly, 10-20% is dreamland.
I take it from this that you include yourself in that group?
How do you think you were infected?
Did you follow all the rules?
Or did you carry on your life, regardless of the consequences for others?
Suppose I was an idiot, and ignored all the rules, went to parties etc and caught the virus. I might have been lucky and only had mild symptoms, or none.
If I then, knowing I had the virus, carried on in the normal manner, not wearing a mask, coughing onto others, sneezing into my hand, then touching handrails etc, never disinfecting my hands. I would most likely of infected dozens of others, who then, unwittingly passed it on to their grandparents.
I could have, due to my inconsiderate actions, caused the premature death of dozens of people. I would have contributed to the increased cases in the community, which would then have caused further lockdowns, with the knock on effect on the local economy and jobs.
I would also have contributed to the increased number of deaths from undiagnosed cancers etc.
If, having done all that, are you seriously suggesting that I should be "rewarded" by being exempt from all the rules, and be allowed to carry on with my "normal" life, including holidays? (good luck getting a flight)
GET REAL!!!
ps the small number of those re-infected is based on the few cases, most of whome needed previous Hospitalisation and were therefore tested. We have absolutely no idea, and no way of calculating how many with no, or mild symtoms have had it multiple times,
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
One point regularly ignored in arguing about Covid19 lockdowns being excessive is long term side effects.
We have good data on death rate and probably death rate doesn't justify a heavy lockdown (between comorbidities and comparision to flu deaths) however stats suggest 2-3% have long term after effects from infection (12 weeks+ which covers a good chunk of the infection period, so we have no idea how long they will last.)
Yes these numbers are high due to not knowing the real infection rate, but even adjusting for that long term side effects rates are high.
The death rate isn't high enough to scare me (for my age group, or any of the age groups I regularly interact with) but getting "long covid" and never being fit enough again to ski off piste for 7-8hrs a day 5 days from 7 - That scares me. Given the potential for it killing people or requiring significant medical treatment several years later as a comorbidity for other illness, it also potentially justifies lockdowns that the deathrate doesn't.
With regards to vaccination, given we are accepting a vaccine with a much lower effectiveness than we normally do, it will require 90+% update to be effective (most vaccines only result in immunity in 80ish% of those vaccinated. They and people who can't be vaccinated (for whatever reason, (preferably health restrictions)) are protected by not being exposed because 70+% of the population is immune. To get useful restrictions on covid spread means getting vaccination rates of 90+% if the numbers I have seen suggested for how many people the vaccine actually works on are correct (and given they appear to be low when run by companies with every desire to get good numbers and have statistically significant ranges for the effectiveness, they probably aren't far off...). This means vaccination will need to be wide spread. Yes we should start with the most vulnerable, then those who regularly interact with the vulnerable, but we still need high rates of vaccination...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| red_dragon wrote: |
| LaForet wrote: |
And you still haven't answered my question - at what level do epidemic deaths warrant the countermeasures that you object to? |
At what levels do unemployment numbers have to reach before you start to object to the counter measures? |
I don't know, tell me. Along with the answer to the question I asked.
Actually, I don't necessarily expect the average person to be able to answer this usefully. But I do expect this and similar answers from our political leaders, along with what the Exit Plan looks like, however uncertain. At what point will a particular measure, of basket of measures cease to be necessary? What's the baseline (in terms of unemployment) against which the fallout of countermeasures is being compared? We get quite a lot of epidemiological data coming out of Govt breifings, but very little in the way of economics. I don't feel that we're being treated as intelligent adults on this - much better to be honest about how bad it will be, rather than the regular uplifting rhetoric we get treated to about a New Jerusalem.
An on immunisation, you can see from the comments here that a lot of people probably don't understand how vaccines and immunisation programmes work. They see it as some sort of 'cure' rather than an indirect public health strategy. And some of the concerns are reasonable, especially given things like the faulty American Polio vaccine programme, or the Thalidomide scandal in the UK. So now is the time for the Govt to be doing the groundwork on educating people and making the case for why we all need to participate one a vaccine does eventually appear., and what it may/won't achieve
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Wed 28-10-20 12:57; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ