By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
So are you arguing we should lockdown for flu season.
For flu, there is a vaccination. Its not perfect but it does reduce the risk. If you like its the equivalent to wearing masks and being socially distanced.
For COVID, there is no vaccination, so masks and socially distancing are required and further measures such as lockdown in areas where its prevalent.
When a vaccine is available for COVID, I'm sure it will be treated the same as flu. Maybe a lesson learned is during flu season masks and distancing should still be done.
No, I don’t think we should be in lockdown for either.
My point is that if you think we should be in lockdown for this virus that largely targets a tiny % of the population in order to protect them, then why isn’t you opinion the same in flu season which irrespective of treatment and prevention still kills tens of thousands of people a year and hundreds of thousands worldwide.
I don’t understand why a vaccine is the factor to lockdown or not when the result is still tens of thousands of people die.
So again what’s your cut off point? What’s your figure. Let’s say there is a vaccine released tomorrow which cuts the number of deaths from 50,000 to 40,000... everyone back to normal you think? How many deaths is acceptable?
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
"In a recent JAMA research letter, 125 of 143 Italian patients ranging in age from 19 to 84 years still experienced physician-confirmed COVID-19—related symptoms an average of 2 months after their first symptom emerged. All had been hospitalized, with their stays averaging about 2 weeks; 80% hadn’t received any form of ventilation."
Coronavirus mortality on 23:51 - Oct 5 by Dr_Parnassus
No, I don’t think we should be in lockdown for either.
My point is that if you think we should be in lockdown for this virus that largely targets a tiny % of the population in order to protect them, then why isn’t you opinion the same in flu season which irrespective of treatment and prevention still kills tens of thousands of people a year and hundreds of thousands worldwide.
I don’t understand why a vaccine is the factor to lockdown or not when the result is still tens of thousands of people die.
So again what’s your cut off point? What’s your figure. Let’s say there is a vaccine released tomorrow which cuts the number of deaths from 50,000 to 40,000... everyone back to normal you think? How many deaths is acceptable?
In an ideal world no deaths are the target.
With flu the consequences are managed as best we can and yes people die. In the UK flu deaths range from 600 to 13000 a year, this is with vaccine's, but less than 50% of the population taking vaccines.
In the UK, with lockdown, there's been 42000 COVID deaths, so far. There's no vaccine so social distancing, masks and lockdowns are the only defence.
So what number would there be without lockdown I wonder?
Lets look at one example, Sweden.
Sweden is about 3 times the size of UK with about 15% of the UK's population. The point here its not as densly populated.
Sweden had just over 500 deaths per million population, its neighbours Finland, Norway and Denmark, with lockdown had figures ranging from 51 to 114 deaths per million. So without lockdown you could estimate the deathrate would rise by between 5 to 10 times.
So without lockdown the UK deathrate could rise to 200,000 to 400,000.
You could argue that would never happen, but that's the issue, you don't know. This is a pandemic, the potential is there, without lockdown you could be seeing many more deaths.
Flu pales in significance.
Groo does what Groo does best
0
Coronavirus mortality on 04:26 - Oct 6 with 966 views
With flu the consequences are managed as best we can and yes people die. In the UK flu deaths range from 600 to 13000 a year, this is with vaccine's, but less than 50% of the population taking vaccines.
In the UK, with lockdown, there's been 42000 COVID deaths, so far. There's no vaccine so social distancing, masks and lockdowns are the only defence.
So what number would there be without lockdown I wonder?
Lets look at one example, Sweden.
Sweden is about 3 times the size of UK with about 15% of the UK's population. The point here its not as densly populated.
Sweden had just over 500 deaths per million population, its neighbours Finland, Norway and Denmark, with lockdown had figures ranging from 51 to 114 deaths per million. So without lockdown you could estimate the deathrate would rise by between 5 to 10 times.
So without lockdown the UK deathrate could rise to 200,000 to 400,000.
You could argue that would never happen, but that's the issue, you don't know. This is a pandemic, the potential is there, without lockdown you could be seeing many more deaths.
Flu pales in significance.
You aren’t really answering the question. Say a vaccine comes out tomorrow and reduced Covid deaths from 40,000 to 30,000 are you happy enough to let people out. If not then what’s your number? It is thought17,000 a year die from flu in the UK and 650,000 worldwide.
Important to note that you can’t take a range of flu deaths and compare it to the maximum Covid deaths. Neither of us have any idea how many Covid deaths there, however the one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that it is not as big as the figure stated.
Death where Covid is present is not the same as death from Covid. Huge difference yet in many circumstances they are being merged.
Nobody is saying Covid isn’t bad. But it’s a virus that affects a small proportion of people, minute in fact. Many will have it and not even know they have it. The severe cases tend to be those in the high risk category.
That’s why the OP is so incorrect here. There is no randomness and it is largely predictable in the fact that you are able to determine your own risk factor by knowing your own health and immune system.
Comparing countries is also futile because there are country specific factors. Take America for example, it’s politicised. The media are falling over themselves to state the 200,000 figure... but they aren’t focussing on the fact that 40% of America is obese. There is circumstances that make viruses such as this worse for certain people.
Locking down healthy population is sheer lunacy. To advocate saving tens of thousands of people in the vulnerable category for this virus, then we really should be consistent and lock down healthy people to save tens of thousands of people dying from flu. Vaccine or no vaccine, doesn’t make a difference. Saving lives is saving lives.
I think once people realise that, that are making a humanitarian point - then they may start to see where the flaw in that thinking is.
[Post edited 6 Oct 2020 4:33]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Coronavirus mortality on 04:26 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
You aren’t really answering the question. Say a vaccine comes out tomorrow and reduced Covid deaths from 40,000 to 30,000 are you happy enough to let people out. If not then what’s your number? It is thought17,000 a year die from flu in the UK and 650,000 worldwide.
Important to note that you can’t take a range of flu deaths and compare it to the maximum Covid deaths. Neither of us have any idea how many Covid deaths there, however the one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that it is not as big as the figure stated.
Death where Covid is present is not the same as death from Covid. Huge difference yet in many circumstances they are being merged.
Nobody is saying Covid isn’t bad. But it’s a virus that affects a small proportion of people, minute in fact. Many will have it and not even know they have it. The severe cases tend to be those in the high risk category.
That’s why the OP is so incorrect here. There is no randomness and it is largely predictable in the fact that you are able to determine your own risk factor by knowing your own health and immune system.
Comparing countries is also futile because there are country specific factors. Take America for example, it’s politicised. The media are falling over themselves to state the 200,000 figure... but they aren’t focussing on the fact that 40% of America is obese. There is circumstances that make viruses such as this worse for certain people.
Locking down healthy population is sheer lunacy. To advocate saving tens of thousands of people in the vulnerable category for this virus, then we really should be consistent and lock down healthy people to save tens of thousands of people dying from flu. Vaccine or no vaccine, doesn’t make a difference. Saving lives is saving lives.
I think once people realise that, that are making a humanitarian point - then they may start to see where the flaw in that thinking is.
[Post edited 6 Oct 2020 4:33]
We are not absolutely sure that the number is not that big, you are.
A small percent have COVID as the only ailment, the rest are COVID with something else. So yes, the numbers are correct.
I'll repeat what I wrote earlier....
“For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.”
This is the quote that started right wing conspirocy theorists to claim the death rate is lower.
"Indeed, this 6 percent stat has become a rallying cry of sorts for conspiracy theorists and far-right defenders of President Donald Trump. This is especially true in the conservative echo chambers of social media. The point of these posts is to cast doubt on the public health, medical and scientific communities, claiming they are purposefully overstating the impact of the coronavirus in the U.S., probably to hurt Trump.
The truth is that in 6 percent of the deaths, Covid-19 was the only cause of death listed and in the remaining 94 percent, people had at least one additional factor contributing to their deaths. Stated another way, the majority of Americans who died from Covid-19 had another medical condition on top of the coronavirus at the time of their death. Many patients died in the hospital, often intubated, on mechanical ventilation and with multiple organ failure due to the invasive nature of the virus; the red spikes on the surface of the virus wreaking havoc by tearing into the body at a cellular level. "
here's a link to a fact check which dismisses the "lower"claim.
We are not absolutely sure that the number is not that big, you are.
A small percent have COVID as the only ailment, the rest are COVID with something else. So yes, the numbers are correct.
I'll repeat what I wrote earlier....
“For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.”
This is the quote that started right wing conspirocy theorists to claim the death rate is lower.
"Indeed, this 6 percent stat has become a rallying cry of sorts for conspiracy theorists and far-right defenders of President Donald Trump. This is especially true in the conservative echo chambers of social media. The point of these posts is to cast doubt on the public health, medical and scientific communities, claiming they are purposefully overstating the impact of the coronavirus in the U.S., probably to hurt Trump.
The truth is that in 6 percent of the deaths, Covid-19 was the only cause of death listed and in the remaining 94 percent, people had at least one additional factor contributing to their deaths. Stated another way, the majority of Americans who died from Covid-19 had another medical condition on top of the coronavirus at the time of their death. Many patients died in the hospital, often intubated, on mechanical ventilation and with multiple organ failure due to the invasive nature of the virus; the red spikes on the surface of the virus wreaking havoc by tearing into the body at a cellular level. "
here's a link to a fact check which dismisses the "lower"claim.
Of course we are sure, there is not a single doubt about that. That is not a conspiracy, that’s a verifiable fact. Just how inflated it is, we are unsure. In America the seasonal flu deaths have plummeted, as have the deaths from natural causes in the elderly. If Covid is present when you die and it cannot be 100% certain it is from something else - it is listed as a Covid death.
So again. How many deaths is acceptable when there is a vaccine? Is 30,000 deaths acceptable? 25,000 deaths?
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Coronavirus mortality on 04:46 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
Of course we are sure, there is not a single doubt about that. That is not a conspiracy, that’s a verifiable fact. Just how inflated it is, we are unsure. In America the seasonal flu deaths have plummeted, as have the deaths from natural causes in the elderly. If Covid is present when you die and it cannot be 100% certain it is from something else - it is listed as a Covid death.
So again. How many deaths is acceptable when there is a vaccine? Is 30,000 deaths acceptable? 25,000 deaths?
WE are not sure, you are.
Stop asking the same question, I've answered it enough your making yourself look extremely stupid.
Stop asking the same question, I've answered it enough your making yourself look extremely stupid.
Again, we are absolutely certain of it. You may not be as you wouldn’t have done the research clearly, but we (as in the rest of the world) are absolutely positive of that. It’s not even a question. I understand it’s inconvenient to your point but unfortunately it doesn’t change the reality of it.
Can you point me to the answer then? I am asking it because I have not read an answer. I am happy to look stupid by repeating a question if I feel someone is intentionally avoiding it in a dishonest fashion.
You could have repeated it in the time it took you to type that.
Look forward to you highlighting the figure you gave so we can discuss it.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Coronavirus mortality on 04:56 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
Again, we are absolutely certain of it. You may not be as you wouldn’t have done the research clearly, but we (as in the rest of the world) are absolutely positive of that. It’s not even a question. I understand it’s inconvenient to your point but unfortunately it doesn’t change the reality of it.
Can you point me to the answer then? I am asking it because I have not read an answer. I am happy to look stupid by repeating a question if I feel someone is intentionally avoiding it in a dishonest fashion.
You could have repeated it in the time it took you to type that.
Look forward to you highlighting the figure you gave so we can discuss it.
Looks like the pink faerie's been at it, as COVID is not at all to blame.
Groo does what Groo does best
0
Coronavirus mortality on 05:17 - Oct 6 with 945 views
Coronavirus mortality on 05:17 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
I’m not with you?
You are clearly muddling yourself between deaths from Covid and deaths with Covid.
Again, I’m still not seeing your answer to how many deaths are acceptable.
Have you read the title of the graph? It is quite clear.
Irrespective of that, I don't know how many people you know who have died "with" Covid, I am fortunate enough to only know two. Although that is two too many.
Both died from Covid. No question. I suspect most have, even if they are over the age of 80.
Anyway, lockdown and other measures isn't just about saving lives.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 07:58 - Oct 6 with 913 views
Have you read the title of the graph? It is quite clear.
Irrespective of that, I don't know how many people you know who have died "with" Covid, I am fortunate enough to only know two. Although that is two too many.
Both died from Covid. No question. I suspect most have, even if they are over the age of 80.
Anyway, lockdown and other measures isn't just about saving lives.
I fully understand the graph, I don’t know how that marries up with the point being made.
Nobody is saying Covid doesn’t kill people, it’s a virus. What is being said is that if we are to lockdown for a virus that kills thousands of vulnerable people, then why aren’t we locking down for flu that also kills thousands of vulnerable people?
I don’t personally know anyone who has died with or from Covid, but I know how data is collected and I know what is being counted and what isn’t. The Department of Health has confirmed that they are counting people dying with Covid as Covid deaths even if they died from other causes (even gunshot wound).
So the figures are clearly inflated, no question about it. So any comparison to flu numbers which are extremely high also isn’t giving the full picture. If this is a humanitarian reason, which seems to be the case as we keep hearing the “don’t they matter then?” argument - then that works for flu too, don’t they matter then?
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Coronavirus mortality on 07:58 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
I fully understand the graph, I don’t know how that marries up with the point being made.
Nobody is saying Covid doesn’t kill people, it’s a virus. What is being said is that if we are to lockdown for a virus that kills thousands of vulnerable people, then why aren’t we locking down for flu that also kills thousands of vulnerable people?
I don’t personally know anyone who has died with or from Covid, but I know how data is collected and I know what is being counted and what isn’t. The Department of Health has confirmed that they are counting people dying with Covid as Covid deaths even if they died from other causes (even gunshot wound).
So the figures are clearly inflated, no question about it. So any comparison to flu numbers which are extremely high also isn’t giving the full picture. If this is a humanitarian reason, which seems to be the case as we keep hearing the “don’t they matter then?” argument - then that works for flu too, don’t they matter then?
It's no more about a comparison to flu than it is Ebola or HIV. Flu is a completely different virus in mortality and disease, although it is spread in a similar way.
Excess deaths are excess deaths whether they are gunshot wound or Cancer. These are people killed by Covid perhaps within a couple of months of when other factors would have killed them but in many cases not.
The group vulnerable to Covid is far larger than flu. An average 74 year old woman would probably have a less than 1% chance of being hospitalised by flu, that increases to at least 15% with Covid. A diabetic 45 year old would probably fight flu off in 10 days, there's probably a 10% chance they'd end up in hospital with Covid. The average age of ICU admissions with Covid is late 50's in the UK, with Flu that is probably late 70's.
That is why lock down is necessary for Covid and not flu. If Covid runs through the population without at least a moderate level of lockdown the NHS and other business simply won't cope.
Covid deaths are inflated I've no doubt about that - but quite possibly no more than flu. I'd bet there are people who die "with" flu but "of" something else that make up the total of flu deaths.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 09:26 - Oct 6 with 903 views
It's no more about a comparison to flu than it is Ebola or HIV. Flu is a completely different virus in mortality and disease, although it is spread in a similar way.
Excess deaths are excess deaths whether they are gunshot wound or Cancer. These are people killed by Covid perhaps within a couple of months of when other factors would have killed them but in many cases not.
The group vulnerable to Covid is far larger than flu. An average 74 year old woman would probably have a less than 1% chance of being hospitalised by flu, that increases to at least 15% with Covid. A diabetic 45 year old would probably fight flu off in 10 days, there's probably a 10% chance they'd end up in hospital with Covid. The average age of ICU admissions with Covid is late 50's in the UK, with Flu that is probably late 70's.
That is why lock down is necessary for Covid and not flu. If Covid runs through the population without at least a moderate level of lockdown the NHS and other business simply won't cope.
Covid deaths are inflated I've no doubt about that - but quite possibly no more than flu. I'd bet there are people who die "with" flu but "of" something else that make up the total of flu deaths.
Again, nobody is disputing people die from Covid. So I don’t understand the excess deaths argument. It’s a new virus that wasn’t killing people last year. Of course excess deaths will be going up. If flu wasn’t introduced until this year we would be seeing even more excess deaths. Excess deaths isn’t an argument.
To say you have no doubt Covid deaths are inflated “but no more than flu” is just wrong. I don’t know anyone who would die of a bullet to the head and have Flu as cause of death because he had a runny nose and a temperature. There is incentive to mark deaths down as Covid, that just doesn’t exist with seasonal flu.
Whether more people die or the vulnerable group is larger doesn’t matter. If we are looking at it from a point of saving people then surely we lock down every flu season to save the 17,000 a year that die? They matter don’t they?
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
We can all argue about lockdowns until the cows come home. Your take on it as going to be largely governed by your individual circumstances - in the main the health and finances of your nearest and dearest.
In the meantime out leaders have blown billions of pounds on track and trace, developing a system than can be mucked up by a mistake on Excel, a piece of software used effectively by 10 year olds.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 11:05 - Oct 6 with 887 views
Coronavirus mortality on 09:26 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
Again, nobody is disputing people die from Covid. So I don’t understand the excess deaths argument. It’s a new virus that wasn’t killing people last year. Of course excess deaths will be going up. If flu wasn’t introduced until this year we would be seeing even more excess deaths. Excess deaths isn’t an argument.
To say you have no doubt Covid deaths are inflated “but no more than flu” is just wrong. I don’t know anyone who would die of a bullet to the head and have Flu as cause of death because he had a runny nose and a temperature. There is incentive to mark deaths down as Covid, that just doesn’t exist with seasonal flu.
Whether more people die or the vulnerable group is larger doesn’t matter. If we are looking at it from a point of saving people then surely we lock down every flu season to save the 17,000 a year that die? They matter don’t they?
Why does the fact that it's a new virus devalue their deaths and negate the need for lockdown? Of course excess deaths is an argument, but not the entire argument. The excess deaths are because of a new virus we can control to a certain degree through social distancing until we have some form of mitigation such as a vaccine.
The "bullet in the head" argument is the absolute extreme though isn't it? What I mean is that people will be considered of dying of flu, and it will be on their death certificate alongside comorbidities such as heart diesease or cancer in the same way as dying of/with Covid. How many people actually die of flu and have absolutley nothing else wrong with them, proabably a tiny percentage far smaller than Covid ?
Of course the 17,000 matter as individuals but that group is not as significant as the 40 odd thousand that have died of/with covid just 6 months in to the outbreak. Despite lockdown.
Lockdown isn't only about saving lives it is about stopping a lot of people getting seriously ill and needing treatment who otherwise wouldn't be able to get that treatment.
I believe originally the science suggested without any lockdown 70% of the population would contract Covid over a 12 week period. That is about 45 million people in the UK, a conservative estimate would be 5% needing hospital treatment. That is about 230000 people over that period - or about 2700 hospital admissions a day with Covid alone. That is about four times the entire capacity of Morriston hospital. Every hospital bed in the UK would have a Covid patient in it just 8 weeks in to the outbreak.
Deaths are a terrible side issue but not why lockdown is needed.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 11:18 - Oct 6 with 885 views
I am shortly off to the doctor's here for a flu jab.Hopefully,thi time next year I will be getting one for covid. I honestly believe the world is effectively standing still until we get a jab freely available.
I read with incredulity demoes against lockdown,masks or even border control. What do thee people offer as an alternative. Nothing? Just let people die while we drink,eat out,go to a game,cinema and tan our arses on a sunbed ?
Coronavirus mortality on 05:17 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
I’m not with you?
You are clearly muddling yourself between deaths from Covid and deaths with Covid.
Again, I’m still not seeing your answer to how many deaths are acceptable.
The graph is purely to show your statement that the COVID death rate figures cannot be believed, they are made up, the whole world is lying because they want Trump to lose an election, a massive hoax.
It shows that over a 7 week period at the peak of the first COVID crisis, the death rate in England and Wales was between 2,000 to 10,000 more than the yearly average.
A coincidence I hear you say, COVID is a hoax. The graph shows that quite easily the excess deaths over that period will count up to and maybe more than the official 42,000 deaths attributed to COVID by the government.
You know the figure you say is a lie, made up.
Groo does what Groo does best
0
Coronavirus mortality on 14:16 - Oct 6 with 857 views
Coronavirus mortality on 05:17 - Oct 6 by Dr_Parnassus
I’m not with you?
You are clearly muddling yourself between deaths from Covid and deaths with Covid.
Again, I’m still not seeing your answer to how many deaths are acceptable.
To answer your question "Again, I’m still not seeing your answer to how many deaths are acceptable." although Scotia has given a good answer.
Although I think you are being deliberately obtuse and the question shows remarkable levels of trivialization and deflection.
So here for you the answer.
Its not a question of how many deaths are acceptable, the obvious target would be no deaths. BUT ...
With flu you have a medical barrier to reduce the effects on society, not enough people take the vaccine, less than 50%, perhaps it should be mandantory but the civil rights groups would fight against that. Some years the vaccine are better than others, but there are controls to reduce the impact.
With COVID there is no medical solutuion to reduce, restrict the spread. Therefore it can spiral out of control, as we have already seen. As Scotia points out, this not only will result in many more direct deaths, it would overload the health system, possibly placing others at risk.
Until there is a vaccine, masks, distancing, sanitizing and when losing control, lockdowns are the only defence.
There, omnce more, that answer has been in the previous posts, I cannot force you to read and understand.
As I said, I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.
Groo does what Groo does best
0
Coronavirus mortality on 14:17 - Oct 6 with 855 views
To answer your question "Again, I’m still not seeing your answer to how many deaths are acceptable." although Scotia has given a good answer.
Although I think you are being deliberately obtuse and the question shows remarkable levels of trivialization and deflection.
So here for you the answer.
Its not a question of how many deaths are acceptable, the obvious target would be no deaths. BUT ...
With flu you have a medical barrier to reduce the effects on society, not enough people take the vaccine, less than 50%, perhaps it should be mandantory but the civil rights groups would fight against that. Some years the vaccine are better than others, but there are controls to reduce the impact.
With COVID there is no medical solutuion to reduce, restrict the spread. Therefore it can spiral out of control, as we have already seen. As Scotia points out, this not only will result in many more direct deaths, it would overload the health system, possibly placing others at risk.
Until there is a vaccine, masks, distancing, sanitizing and when losing control, lockdowns are the only defence.
There, omnce more, that answer has been in the previous posts, I cannot force you to read and understand.
As I said, I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.
There is a minor detail being ignored by you and scotia. The crap version of lockdown used by the UK has meant that there is very likely to be a further high number of non COVID related deaths. That has already been quite a few, but it has been estimated that there will be almost as many excess deaths from non COVID as there has been with COVID. You are also ignoring that there is actually an alternative to "Lockdown" and that is focused protection for vulnerable groups. Because of various pressures the preventative benefits of vitamins and minerals is also being largely ignored for both the flu and COVID. Years of previous research is being ignored because supposedely the only answer is a Vaccine.
There is also the issue of freedom of choice. If an old person would prefer to take the chance of catching and dying of COVID from a family member rather than live a totally miserable isolated existence, it should be their's and their family's choice, not the bloody useless governments.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 15:43 - Oct 6 with 825 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.