welshbairn Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said: Two women with stage 4 breast cancer on the STV news right now. These poor women aren’t able to get treatment or take part in trials. It’s terrible that cancer patients are being sacrificed. As one of the women said, covid is taking precedent over every other disease. They've got stage 4 cancer and being refused treatment? Unbelievable. I mean that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, engelbert_humperdink said: I'm suggesting it because it seems the only solution unless you want to be social distancing for the next decade. Healthy people die every day, for whatever reason. And what is the chance of a healthy person catching and dying of the virus? I'd assume it was that small that any sane healthy person would take there chances as they are probably more likely to die of some other cause You're suggesting it because it lets you get back on with your life. It's selfish and the fact you don't seem to care that herd immunity would require hundreds of thousands of deaths only confirms that. "Healthy people die every day" yeah so lets pile even more deaths on top of that even though we could avoid them. I'll take social distancing for as long as it's required, thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, engelbert_humperdink said: I'm suggesting it because it seems the only solution unless you want to be social distancing for the next decade. Healthy people die every day, for whatever reason. And what is the chance of a healthy person catching and dying of the virus? I'd assume it was that small that any sane healthy person would take there chances as they are probably more likely to die of some other cause Short of a vaccine the probable best solution is suppression, not herd immunity. If only because we have little data on acquired immunity or even how long that immunity lasts. Suppression would allow for us to go back to normal with no social distancing and was the means by which SARS was put to bed. There also needs to be a clear set of public policies for the next time this happens, and that has to be a general, global set of policies not tied to the particulars of the disease. Thd next one, might not necessarily be as low a fatality rate... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engelbert_humperdink Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said: I was out earlier today to the local shop. I was shocked to see a neighbour there. This woman is 85 if she’s a day and with health problems. If someone like that is flouting the rules then sin it any wonder the younger generation are? The oldies seem to be sticking to lockdown less than my generation A pensioner got on the bus yesterday, had a go at the driver for how long he was waiting at the bus stop, then went and sat right behind some woman. I can't blame a lot of them because at that age time really is precious. They may just have the f**k it they could drop dead next month, not going to sit on my arse for my last days, and I cannot sit here and say that I wouldnt probably do the same 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, renton said: Short of a vaccine the probable best solution is suppression, not herd immunity. If only because we have little data on acquired immunity or even how long that immunity lasts. Suppression would allow for us to go back to normal with no social distancing and was the means by which SARS was put to bed. There also needs to be a clear set of public policies for the next time this happens, and that has to be a general, global set of policies not tied to the particulars of the disease. Thd next one, might not necessarily be as low a fatality rate... Is suppression feasible now that it's so wide spread. Couldn't it effectively become a decades long game of whack-a-mole? SARS was suppressed because it was less infectious and was never able to become particularly widespread was it not? Edited May 19, 2020 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engelbert_humperdink Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 minute ago, The Moonster said: You're suggesting it because it lets you get back on with your life. It's selfish and the fact you don't seem to care that herd immunity would require hundreds of thousands of deaths only confirms that. "Healthy people die every day" yeah so lets pile even more deaths on top of that even though we could avoid them. I'll take social distancing for as long as it's required, thanks. 10 years? Really. I don't see a scenario that if the vulnerable were properly self isolating and cared for during the last 8 weeks, and life went on as normal for the rest of the population, that we would be close to hundreds of thousands of deaths. And we would be closer to building immunity to the virus. There comes a point that quality of life will lead to people begining to completely ignore social distancing and lockdown guidelines. We are not in 1940's Britain anymore. This current generation are not of that ilk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 16 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said: Two women with stage 4 breast cancer on the STV news right now. These poor women aren’t able to get treatment or take part in trials. It’s terrible that cancer patients are being sacrificed. As one of the women said, covid is taking precedent over every other disease. They could get treatment, the risk is if they go to a hospital and catch covid. Their oncologist has taken the decisions that covid is more dangerous to them than not having treatment. This would be the case whether we're in lockdown or not, so short of wishing the virus away I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, renton said: Suppression would allow for us to go back to normal with no social distancing and was the means by which SARS was put to bed. I actually think Scotland is in a position to seriously consider this. Three consecutive days of double figure new infections and an ever falling positive test rate. I don't think people would mind so much if we did go down this route, and had it explained to us that this was why lockdown will last a bit longer here but that we expect by d date to have new infections at or so close to zero that an effective TTI program could remove the virus from circulation. I don't think we will do this though. Edited May 19, 2020 by Todd_is_God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 17 minutes ago, engelbert_humperdink said: How far ahead are we medically now, how much more informative are we in nutrition now. You can't compare diseases of yesteryear to now. Antibody testing is needed because we may never find a safe proof vaccine and if this virus isn't going away, what else is there but her immunity. Contact tracing and isolation, rolling tagetted lockdowns. I posted an article about it yesterday. Neither of these would produce the brutal numbers what you're suggesting would 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Gordon EF said: Is suppression feasible now that it's so wide spread. Couldn't it effectively become a decades long game of whack-a-mole? Quite possibly. I guess the attempt is to not have it popping up too many places at once. Really whacking it now, driving it down and out is our best bet short of a vaccine. At the same time, we should he aiming to drive up the number of ICU beds and ventilators per person so that outbreaks have more margin before they become a critical stress on the NHS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 55 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said: The experts have already said there may never be a vaccine for it, so do we just shut down life and live in fear? 14 minutes ago, engelbert_humperdink said: I'm suggesting it because it seems the only solution unless you want to be social distancing for the next decade. 32 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said: You’ll never convince certain people on here. They’re set in their doom and gloom ways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engelbert_humperdink Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, madwullie said: Contact tracing and isolation, rolling tagetted lockdowns. I posted an article about it yesterday. Neither of these would produce the brutal numbers what you're suggesting would We could well be too far down the road for this anyway. The antibody testing is the most important thing imo. Until we have a real number on who has had it, then surely we will be in a better position moving forward, and also more improtantly find out how deadly covid actually is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, engelbert_humperdink said: We could well be too far down the road for this anyway. The antibody testing is the most important thing imo. Until we have a real number on who has had it, then surely we will be in a better position moving forward, and also more improtantly find out how deadly covid actually is You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about mate. 2 pages ago you were advocating doing nothing because it's the only option we have, now you're saying we need an antibody test before we can know what our options are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 What is the point in these anecdotes about pensioners at the shop, and crotchety old guys on the bus btw? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: SARS was suppressed because it was less infectious and was never able to become particularly widespread was it not? I think the R0 value was broadly similar but it was symptomatic earlier I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Steele Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 24 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said: The oldies seem to be sticking to lockdown less than my generation Oh to be 15 again, when you thought you were invincible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 And btw we're not too far down the road for ether TTI or rolling lockdowns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engelbert_humperdink Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, madwullie said: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about mate. 2 pages ago you were advocating doing nothing because it's the only option we have, now you're saying we need an antibody test before we can know what our options are. I mentioned antibody testing from the start 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, renton said: I think the R0 value was broadly similar but it was symptomatic earlier I think. From what I remember, I think you were infectious when you were basically in hospital/fucked in bed which helped stop it spreading. Problem with this is you're infectious without knowing you have it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, madwullie said: What is the point in these anecdotes about pensioners at the shop, and crotchety old guys on the bus btw? I believe it's to highlight the nonsense that young people who want to live their lives are being branded selfish for not wanting to potentially have their enjoyment of their younger years curtailed for a (potentially) indefinite period to protect those who, having already lived the best years of their lives, paid their mortgages off, and are generally free from the financial concerns many are now faced with, are content to ignore the advice and restrictions for everyone that have been put in place to specifically protect them Edited May 19, 2020 by Todd_is_God 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.