Hancock's Half Hour

[doctor Bob]

I suppose you're going to tell me the evil mainstream media were making it all up :lol:

Do you think the media

a/ underplay a good story
b/ tell the absolute truth
c/ overplay a good story

I don't know but their record is not great. I hope it is b.

 

[Rorschach]

Sorry but you are wrong there, you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.
Any country that has managed to keep the numbers of deaths low, NZ and AUS for instance has only delayed the inevitable and is now stuck in limbo, you can't open up the borders either in or out. NZ's economy is 25% tourism, what on earth do you do to replace that?

Sorry, but you are wrong there. By delaying the death of people from the disease you can await the development of a vaccine.
Oz and NZ are already in talks about reopening their borders to one another. Also, NZ had already identified its over-dependency on tourism before the outbreak of the pandemic and had resolved to address it. A four day week to promote domestic tourism is being seriously considered.
Your arguments appear to be based on an assumption that, if the virus is allowed to run its course and dispose of those at risk then the world can move back to where it was 5 - 6 months ago. This IMO will not happen. Whether better or worse, the world will be different. Perhaps this is a chance to make it a better one.
If that means a step back to a time before globalization (and mass tourism) so be it. Globalization has done nothing to improve the lot of most of the world's population other than to give some a more comfortable existence at the expense of other, poorer, countries. It and the mass movement of people, has also led to the ease at which this and other viruses have spread. The pandemic has further exposed the dangers of inter-dependency, whether it be for pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs.
If replacing NZ's tourism industry with other industries that promote more self-sufficiency then bring it on.
Pete

Let's see how things pan out for NZ, I hope I am wrong, but I doubt I will be. Feel free to message me in 6 months, in 12 months etc and prove me wrong, I hope you can.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

A few thoughts:

Initially (before lockdown) transmission rates meant that cases and subsequent deaths were doubling every 3 days (approx). It is completely complacent to suggest that NHS was nowhere close to being overwhelmed - mass deaths etc were only a week away. It is worth noting that the death rate would have multiplied as those needing hospitalisation but not ventilation (eg supplementary oxygen) may not then have received treatment.

This is very much a disease of the vulnerable and old. For most (under 45??) I can fully understand why lockdown and the financial and emotional pressures have been so difficult.

For the vulnerable (includes me sadly) I am increasing drawn to the thought that it is more about personal risk management. Individuals who wish to minimise their own risks and isolate themselves should be supported in so doing broadly as now currently happens. The rest of the community, apart from properly respecting the right of some individuals to isolate, should be able to live largely as before the pandemic - restaurants, bars, cinemas, sports etc etc.

Vulnerable individuals can decide for themselves what level of risk they find acceptable - eg: I may be happy having a beer outside in a pub garden, but not inside a crowded bar. I may go to the local beach during the week outside school holidays, but not at the weekend or in school hols. I will carry on with the joy of online shopping, but will briefly visit the local baker for a fresh baguette.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Today went as well as can be expected, I suppose. At least we are all still taking, sort of.

A question: is the lockdown in p!ace to save lives, or allow the NHS respite? The original assumption was many more cases, many more extreme adverse reactions, and many more deaths. They emptied out the hospitals and dumped seriously ill people on care homes, who were obviously not equipped to deal with it. As per the BMJ, two thirds of care home deaths can be attributed to non-covid19 causes. Was that done to save lives, or save the NHS?

The propaganda du jour is that it has all been done to keep the public safe. Is that true, or just a fig-leaf to cover a very pragmatic problem - NHS lack of capacity? I'm not criticising the NHS staffing levels - it would be insane to keep enough employees in hand to cope with a one-in-a-hundred-year problem. But do we cower under our beds in the hope of saving one more life, or in the hope of the creaky system tottering on until the case levels drop, once enough people have caught the disease?

It strikes me how few people here interested in looking to the future. For me, the whole point and purpose of these types of conversation is to try work out what happens next, and how to deal with it. What actions to take, what to avoid, what is true, what is false. I suppose I use everyone as a sounding board, with car-crash results on occasion (for which I am truly sorry, really). But, what comes next? No one cares? As long as someone else provides food and electricity to run the bandsaw, we're all good?

Something I learned today, much to my surprise: the US federal reserve in March reduced the need for banks to hold 10% of assets as reserves to zero. In other words, theoretically a bank could now create an infinite amount of money, at no cost, and with no consequences. In theory, that is. UK currently has no reserve requirement either, but being the UK it is all done with "gentlemen's agreements" and "my word is my bond", so it's all a bit more opaque. I'm trying to work out if this is astonishingly dangerous, or irrelevant. Galloping inflation and madness, or business as usual? Answers on a postcard.

So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? Two: what comes next, over say the next two years? Any views?

 

[Rorschach]

This is very much a disease of the vulnerable and old. For most (under 45??) I can fully understand why lockdown and the financial and emotional pressures have been so difficult.

For the vulnerable (includes me sadly) I am increasing drawn to the thought that it is more about personal risk management. Individuals who wish to minimise their own risks and isolate themselves should be supported in so doing broadly as now currently happens. The rest of the community, apart from properly respecting the right of some individuals to isolate, should be able to live largely as before the pandemic - restaurants, bars, cinemas, sports etc etc.

Vulnerable individuals can decide for themselves what level of risk they find acceptable - eg: I may be happy having a beer outside in a pub garden, but not inside a crowded bar. I may go to the local beach during the week outside school holidays, but not at the weekend or in school hols. I will carry on with the joy of online shopping, but will briefly visit the local baker for a fresh baguette.

Sadly it seems there are a lot of people that cant seem to manage that simple task and require precise instructions. It makes you wonder if they have a little instruction manual on how to wipe their own buttocks.
Personal risk management is something we should all be doing everyday but it seems we can't or think we can't and the elites think we can't be trusted anyway. They call the young generation snowflake but it's the middle aged too especially among the middle classes.

 

[MikeG.]

.........Personal risk management is something we should all be doing everyday but it seems we can't...........it's the middle aged too especially among the middle classes.

You haven't got any evidence of this. Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Rorschach]

So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? Two: what comes next, over say the next two years? Any views?

Saving the NHS which they assumed can't cope, even though it could, but more importantly saving the image of the NHS lest we realise that is a totally inadequate, bloated drain on public finance . My views on the NHS were not popular before so I won't air them again but it is in serious need of reform if we have such a dim view of it that we need to tank the economy in order to save it's public image.

 

[Rorschach]

.........Personal risk management is something we should all be doing everyday but it seems we can't...........it's the middle aged too especially among the middle classes.

You haven't got any evidence of this. Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

Take one look at facebook and you will see. Case in point, radio2 this lunchtime, chap phones in about the new guidelines on meeting 6 people. He said "my daughter and husband have 3 children, so with me and my wife that makes 7, does that mean we can't see them?" :shock:
If you are that dumb that you can't make a sensible decision about that and need to ask someone then I weep for humanity.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

You haven't got any evidence of this. Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

Every time I see a government spokesperson give the latest advice, it is followed by talking heads denigrating the advice by asking "but what if my brother-in-law's ex wife wants to do some shopping, and I need to fill up the petrol tank?", or other facile, not-quite-ticking-all-the-boxes scenario. The media demand spoon-feeding of every possible permutation, and claim government incompetence when it isn't forthcoming. At least, that is my perception from what I see on the BBC - it may be different for those actually inside Blighty.

My Life of Brian balcony scene seems as apposite as ever. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY in case you missed it).

 

[MikeG.]

.........Personal risk management is something we should all be doing everyday but it seems we can't...........it's the middle aged too especially among the middle classes.

You haven't got any evidence of this. Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

Take one look at facebook and you will see............

That's it? That's the best you've got? Really, that needs a big laughing dog emoticon. I said "evidence". I didn't say "confirmation-biased tittle tattle on social media". I'm not really surprised that you don't know the difference.

 

[Rorschach]

That's it? That's the best you've got? Really, that needs a big laughing dog emoticon. I said "evidence". I didn't say "confirmation-biased tittle tattle on social media". I'm not really surprised that you don't know the difference.

:lol:
What were you expecting, a study and a graph? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You must have looked really hard to find something to pull me up on.

 

[MikeG.]

That's it? That's the best you've got? Really, that needs a big laughing dog emoticon. I said "evidence". I didn't say "confirmation-biased tittle tattle on social media". I'm not really surprised that you don't know the difference.

:lol:
What were you expecting, a study and a graph? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

A link to some evidence. You know, in the normal way.

You must have looked really hard to find something to pull me up on.

No, there's unsubstantiated nonsense in many of your posts on this subject.

 

[Rorschach]

No, there's unsubstantiated nonsense in many of your posts on this subject.

But you point out the one that was obviously an anecdotally based opinion (with HYPERBOLE :lol: ) instead of the ones you knew had facts, studies, articles and scientists to back them up. Because then of course you would have to work hard to find something to refute it instead of being able to be all high and mighty :roll: :lol:

 

[MikeG.]

You could maybe read the 3 or 4 posts in this little series and see how silly this looks. You made a claim, I said you'd got no evidence, you said "look at Facebook". You didn't say "no, I haven't, but I've got some anecdotes..." or "I was was just being hyperbolic" (there was nothing whatever about your claim which was hyperbolic. You just decided to slander middle class people). No, you said "look at Facebook...."

There's a reason I stay away from this thread. I really should stick to that.

 

[nev]

If you lot cannot be civil and not have personal digs at other members then this lot goes in the bin.

When we try and be lenient with the politics rule it always ends up in handbags and oneupmanship.

grow up, learn to ignore trolls, idiots and pedants or go somewhere else.

 

[RogerS]

.....
So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? ....

The two go hand-in-hand. Covid-19 has significantly higher morbidity than seasonal flu. Which places a significantly higher load on the NHS. We've already forum'd this out ad nauseam...it was this realisation (finally) and that the necessary parameters to reflect this had not been plugged into Ferguson's model. It's also more infectious than seasonal flu.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

.....
So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? ....

The two go hand-in-hand. Covid-19 has significantly higher morbidity than seasonal flu. Which places a significantly higher load on the NHS. We've already forum'd this out ad nauseam...it was this realisation (finally) and that the necessary parameters to reflect this had not been plugged into Ferguson's model. It's also more infectious than seasonal flu.

However, only a very limited number of people (+/- 2% of the population) are at risk - for everyone else, it's all somewhat to completely irrelevant. Why not isolate just them?

 

[RogerS]

.....
So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? ....

The two go hand-in-hand. Covid-19 has significantly higher morbidity than seasonal flu. Which places a significantly higher load on the NHS. We've already forum'd this out ad nauseam...it was this realisation (finally) and that the necessary parameters to reflect this had not been plugged into Ferguson's model. It's also more infectious than seasonal flu.

However, only a very limited number of people (+/- 2% of the population) are at risk - for everyone else, it's all somewhat to completely irrelevant. Why not isolate just them?

LOL...are you serious ? How do you know who the 2% are?

 

[Trainee neophyte]

LOL...are you serious ? How do you know who the 2% are?

95% of deaths have co-morbidities. Not rocket science. Hardly beyond the abilities of our genius medical professionals, you would think.

Besides, my personal preference would be to leave it to the individual - make your own choice as to whether or not to self-isolate. Of course, this means all the wealthy hide, and the working poor drop like flies because they have no choice. Perhaps it should be mandatory, if you want to not overwhelm the services. Pretending to be acting in the best interests of the individuals concerned does seem to be a bit disingenuous, when it patently isn't the motivation.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I wonder whether there are parallels with exploration of the new world (America) a few centuries ago. Whole tribes were wiped out by infections to which explorers had some degree of resilience - mumps, chicken pox, syphillis.

CV-19 had the potential as a new virus to do similar to the global population. We now have a much more confident handle on the groups impacted, risks etc. We also have a whole load of cultural and behavioural baggage which largely defines how we react.

Only 1% of all CV-19 deaths relate to those under 45. Going back to the old normal may be more dangerous for this group with increased road accidents, drugs, alcohol, knives etc etc.

Thus the lockdown has everything to do with the preservation of the elderly, particularly those with co-morbidities. Had lockdown not happened, given R0 of 2.5-3.0, I am certain that the NHS would have been quickly overwhelmed. Irrespective of personal beliefs about death and the preservation of life, it would be a truly unpleasant sight to behold - mass graves, burial wagons touring the streets each morning to pick up the departed etc etc.

Whether the preservation of life at all costs (cultural baggage) is something that we should strive for I believe is questionable. Many of us would rather put down a valued and loved pet, having no desire to prolong its suffering. Yet we treat other animals (homo sapiens) worse than animals. I accept this is a very personal issue with deeply held views and I have no wish to offend.

But this does mean that the more vulnerable in society need to have the right to choose their own risk appetite and not be bound by arbitrary central rules. The rest of society need only do what is reasonably required to enable people to make those choices.