We are indeed fortunate

[Spartacus]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?m has suffered more covid deaths just today than

> Australia has since the beginning of the pandemic

>

> Spartacus. You are an idiot with your china

> bollix

Ah

Your insult has been delivered because you have nothing of note to say

Who's looking like an idiot now for resulting to petty playground name calling because you don't like what someone else has said...

I'll leave it there for tonight as I really can't be bothered with people who aren't open for challenges, discussion or differing views.

[Sephiroth]

Quite something to hear that Australia has fewer deaths in 10 months than U.K. has just in one day today and claim it?s ?nothing of note?

You?re such a big man S

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uk has suffered more covid deaths just today than

> Australia has since the beginning of the pandemic

>

> Spartacus. You are an idiot with your china

> bollix

Playing the man, not the ball again Seph?

You may try to hide behind "not playing the man is over-rated" or "if someone says something stupid, I'm going to call them out on it" .....but you're not liberating us all from 'stupid' comments by 'calling them out' you're showing that you'd prefer to name call and act like a bit of a social media bully.

I appreciate you are passionate about your views. But maybe try and dial it down a little huh?

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite something to hear that Australia has fewer

> deaths in 10 months than U.K. has just in one day

> today and claim it?s ?nothing of note?

>

I bought some apples today, and they weren't anything like the oranges I bought yesterday....can someone explain this please?

[Sephiroth]

For people (believe it or not, they already are) crying 'Population!', if we bring Australia's up to the level of the UK's, then its total Covid deaths would be 2,426 - not over 76,000. And if we bring the UK's population down to Australia's, its death toll would still be 28,585.

[TheCat]

You can start with 'population'....then you can move on to...

-Population density

-Percentage of population who travel interstate

-International travellers (both inbound and outbound) as a percent of population

- totally different cultural norms around quarantine (of both goods and people)

- complete differing climates

- a significant greater outdoor/open-air lifestyle

I'm sure there are more which I can't be bothered thinking of right now, but I believe the comparison is totally and utterly invalid in reaching any sort of useful conclusion about who to point fingers at I'm afraid....

[Sephiroth]

Or you could just start and finish with controlling borders

The U.K. made a big deal about being able to do just that not so long ago

Turns out they didn?t want to when time came

[TheCat]

If your point is that they should have closed our borders (or at least introduced mandatory testing or enforced quarantine) in the UK. Then I agree.

The action on this front is late, very late, unfortunately.

(In a mirror image of the govt.... hadnt you been advocating for free movement until your post above:))

[diable rouge]

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The majority, not the minority, feel put upon by

> rules, regardless and the DC incident just gave

> them licence to use it as an excuse. Let's look

> at current behaviour with masks or anti lock down

> protesters , they certainly aren't Doing it all

> because one man didn't follow the rules

You're wrong, again. Take a look at recent polls and you'll find an overwhelming majority in favour of a lockdown (from memory circa 75%), and everyone knows that entails rules. A majority of those wanting a lockdown wanted a 'hard' lockdown (from memory circa 60%), that's not people looking for an excuse to break the rules. For that you have to look at the flip side of the coin, those who didn't want any kind of lockdown (from memory around 10%).

> If trust is that thin then we are either sheep

> lead by the media or quite frankly doomed (captain

> Mainwaring doomed I say)

The DC incident is important as he was seen as an integral part of the Gov and the rules we were asked to follow. Actions and words by those in power have consequences, they act as a catalyst, people will react to them, witness the events in the US right now. DC should've resigned or failing to do so, been sacked. That would've sent out a clear message that breaking the rules was unacceptable.

> Secondly to use your "for the hard of

> understanding" line

>

> For the hard of thinking , how the hell did China

> contain it so well in one Provence yet allowed it

> to spread to the,world. It wasn't just a case of a

> few people having it in small pockets around the

> world, a large number of people must have had it

> to create a viral load that infected so many so

> quickly

> Therefore open your mind, look at why China could

> contain it whilst the rest of the world got it so

> bad and then and only then call me stupid like you

> basically did above !

>

> There has to be some reason that a country of so

> many million where it originated from didn't see

> it explode in all districts yet internationally it

> escaped like a rabid beast.. you tell me how they

> stopped it and the rest of the world couldn't

> because it's not as easy to dismiss as the Tory's

> are feckless idiots ...

I dunno Stupidcus, how does an exponentially spreading virus with a 14-day incubation period, where a third of carriers are believed to be asymptomatic, spread so quickly?...

[Spartacus]

Ah DC I see you and sephiroth are resorting to playground bully child tactics by name calling

If you both want to act as children then respect the fact that you will be treated as such.

As a thought, if DC was such an influential figure then it almost implies that we are all sheep who run in wild circles when the Shepard's do something unexpected.

Maybe if we didn't seek scapegoats to justify us breaking rules, the virus might have been easier to contain.

[diable rouge]

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe if we didn't seek scapegoats to justify us

> breaking rules, the virus might have been easier

> to contain.

You mean like blaming the Chinese for the spread of Covid?

Your promotion to Maximus Stupidcus is now complete...

[Spartacus]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Spartacus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> Your promotion to Maximus Stupidcus is now

> complete...

Sigh

Thank you for your promotion but I don't accept things from strange people !

[KidKruger]

I don?t think the fact that many people thought ?sod it, he?s not following Covid rules so why should I ?? means they blindly followed DC?s behaviour like lemmings, nor used it as an excuse.

I think many people felt let down and their belligerence kicked-in, which is entirely predictable.

[malumbu]

Closing the borders is rather a complex issue. Fine if you are an island the other end of the world, where you are not getting ferries and a rail tunnel supplying you with food and essential goods, in particular through 1000s of HGVs. We're pretty integrated with mainland Europe. So you need to be selective and as well as Wuhan hit those coming back from the ski resorts in Austria and Italy - I think the Germans and Austrians did this. And then other countries with the first wave. Then you can bring in self isolation from at risk countries, with decent enforcement, and ultimately close borders eg with South Africa but interesting that only the UK appears to have gone this far compared to similar countries.

The testing before entry is fundamentally flawed which is why it hasn't been our default position as this only captures the time that you were tested, not the following days when you could become contagious (and for the many asymptomatic not even know this). Demonstrated by Moeen Ali on the flight on the way over to Sri Lanka for the test series (assuming that this was not a false negative in the UK) https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/55532526

And this is all to protect us from those bringing it in from overseas, where this is now the other way round as even accounting for higher testing in the UK we have so much higher levels.

[Seabag]

Dulwich Fox has changed identity?

[TheCat]

Who is it more important to vaccinate first?

Person A: 85 years old. Sits a home all day, apart from once weekly trip to the shops. Hasn't seen extended family in months. HIgher risk of serious illness.

Person B: 35 years old. Works as a refuse collector. Travels on the tube to get from home to the depot. Has unavoidable interactions in daily life. Lower risk of serious illness.

I dont know the right answer here (I dont think there is one). But there is a case to be made surely that many of those who are more at risk from serious illness (or death) are probably also more likely to be able to shield at home for a few more weeks while a greater portion of key workers are vaccinated.

Am thinking about this question in the context of the very live debate about school closures and the harm its doing to children of all ages. There are only ~500,000 teachers (and teaching assistants) in the entire country...so theoretically that number could be vaccinated in about 3 days if prioritised...then schools could be open again about a week later....

Im surprised this isn't the key message being pushed for by the teaching unions (who I would argue have simply advocated for school closures far too quickly without loudly pushing for alternatives that could be both safe for teachers and in the best interest of students (FOR CLARITY - this is a dig at the teaching unions, not the teachers themselves, who have mostly been doing their best in a very tough situation)). Is that upside worth the cost of asking the over 70's to stay isolated and wait another week for the vaccine?......

Of course the wildcard in all this is the science is not really clear yet on whether having the vaccine will stop you from transmitting the virus on to others. It will save you from getting ill yourself, but you might still be able to pass it on to others...which probably supports that the priority should indeed lie with those most at risk of serious illlness....

IN anycase, what a total minefield...moral questions, logisitcal questions, economic questions, well-being questions etc etc etc...

[Seabag]

The current thought seems to be ?most vulnerable? first

But then ?most valuable? comes up, and that?s the hottest political potato to play with.

I?d not wish that choice on anyone to be fair, but it?s a good question.

[JohnL]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The current thought seems to be ?most vulnerable?

> first

>

> But then ?most valuable? comes up, and that?s the

> hottest political potato to play with.

>

> I?d not wish that choice on anyone to be fair, but

> it?s a good question.

The health.org site says

"The current approach prioritises reducing mortality over reducing transmission and therefore targets vaccination at those most likely to die as a result of COVID-19."

"Because age is the primary predictor of COVID-19 mortality, this means mainly targeting older people. It would be necessary to vaccinate around 32 times more 60?64 year olds than those older than 90 year old to save a life"

https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/the-covid-19-vaccine-who-gets-it-first?gclid=Cj0KCQiA0fr_BRDaARIsAABw4Esrev2Zbxj9XYbet7OUWShH8QtwavfYtn40ar-WflU42bWn739T6acaAtJ-EALw_wcB

I've noticed often countries stick together on choices like this - less blame likely if you make a mistake when you're doing what the crowd is doing.

[TheCat]

"Because age is the primary predictor of COVID-19 mortality, this means mainly targeting older people. It would be necessary to vaccinate around 32 times more 60?64 year olds than those older than 90 year old to save a life"

What a coincidental statistic, given that saving the life of a 60 year old (on average) would mean they also get to live for ~30 more years than the remaining years of the 90 years old.....

now thats going very deep into the moral questions...I might stop there!!!

[Spartacus]

It also leads to a moral question of who is most vulnerable ?

Is it as the cat theorises, an 85 Year old who stays at home,or is it a 55 asthmatic who needs to go to work to feed his family?

Both are equally at risk of dying should they catch covid and johnl said , it's about protecting lives not transmission yet surly by reducing transmission you also protect the vulnerable !

I agree, it's not a decision I would like to make or be responsible for and it's interesting to see various groups standing up to say "we should be vaccinated first to protect service a , b or c"

Which do you draw first ? Health care workers , care Home workers, dustman, postie , Teachers, border staff, police officers, transport providers (bus, tube, taxi) and where do you stop and say you are not in the required group ? That could lead to people feeling forgotten.

It's a tough one, but thankfully unlike the Spanish flu pandemic a century ago, modern science has given us vaccines and opportunities to have debates of this ilk !

[malumbu]

You could do the same assessments to other medical interventions for example hip replacements. I similarly would not wish to make those decisions, either quality of life, or life and death. I have a mate who rages over the costs to our economy on the Covid response in terms of collective life years saved

[Blah Blah]

To be fair, both groups are prioritised as part of the phase 1 rollout. In reality, who gets vaccinated first, will be down to local factors, availability of vaccine, location of population etc. Everyone over fifty and all front line workers should have been offered a vaccine by spring, with second shots being completely by early Summer.

[diable rouge]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone over fifty and all front line

> workers should have been offered a vaccine by

> spring, with second shots being completely by

> early Summer.

I know the Pfizer vaccine is 2-shot but early talk was that the AZ vaccine was 1-shot, has that changed?...

[JohnL]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Everyone over fifty and all front line

> > workers should have been offered a vaccine by

> > spring, with second shots being completely by

> > early Summer.

>

> I know the Pfizer vaccine is 2-shot but early talk

> was that the AZ vaccine was 1-shot, has that

> changed?...

I thought it was 1.5 shot - the first shot was half a shot.

[diable rouge]

You're missing the pub aren't you John...:)