One-jab efficacy questions

[RobinBHM]

This is exactly why there should not have been a lockdown. People were and are quite capable of arranging their own lifestyles according to risk we don't need government to tell us we are only allowed out for 30 minutes of every day

That's shows a lack of understanding of the need for collective effort that is required during a pandemic.

You are trying to make the case "keeping a kitchen tidy in a student house"
What is "everybodies responsibility" becomes "nobodies responsibility"


Heres a question for you:

what do you think would happen if the govt said to pub landlords "We will leave it up to whether you want to open or not"

 

[Peterm1000]

This is exactly why there should not have been a lockdown. People were and are quite capable of arranging their own lifestyles according to risk we don't need government to tell us we are only allowed out for 30 minutes of every day

But without the lockdown, you are not just arranging your day according to risk. You are arranging my daughter's day and others too (unless you feel nurses shouldn't be there to care for you when you take that risk and contract Covid). Because in many cases you don't know whether you are infected or not, you have no idea if you are out there infected a load of other people.

I am all for people taking risks with their own safety. I am less keen on people taking risks with other people's safety.

 

[Peterm1000]

Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.

I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things

It pains me to agree with you, but you do have a point on this. The numbers do sound shocking, but there are 60 million Brits alive right now and every year nearly a million of them die to be replaced by nearly a million new citizens. In the UK, 450 people die a day of heart disease and about the same die of cancer. Each of those deaths is just as much a family tragedy as a Covid death and arguably worse because for some, that will have followed months or years of treatment, pain and reduced lifestyles.

 

[RobinBHM]

Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.

I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things

I am sure we all aware old people die of multiple of things.....the absence of reporting that doesn't mean anything.

I really am unsure what point you are trying to make.

By the way the "media didn't report it" is a classic claim of conspiracists.....I'm not sure want to be tugging at that thread

 

[Selwyn]

That's shows a lack of understanding of the need for collective effort that is required during a pandemic.

You are trying to make the case "keeping a kitchen tidy in a student house"
What is "everybodies responsibility" becomes "nobodies responsibility"


Heres a question for you:

what do you think would happen if the govt said to pub landlords "We will leave it up to whether you want to open or not"

You are saying the government can organise peoples lives better than people can organise their own lives which on one level sounds paternalistic but on the other is total overreach. Governments do not organise better than people.

The pubs has guidance, they still have guidance, everyone knows the circumstances and the risk. Should it be up to the pub if they open? 100% yes.

 

[Selwyn]

It pains me to agree with you, but you do have a point on this. The numbers do sound shocking, but there are 60 million Brits alive right now and every year nearly a million of them die to be replaced by nearly a million new citizens. In the UK, 450 people die a day of heart disease and about the same die of cancer. Each of those deaths is just as much a family tragedy as a Covid death and arguably worse because for some, that will have followed months or years of treatment, pain and reduced lifestyles.

Why does it pain you to agree with me?

 

[Selwyn]

I am all for people taking risks with their own safety. I am less keen on people taking risks with other people's safety.

Then I suggest you never drive a car. Furthermore what about the risks we have taken with lockdown on all other deaths and livelihoods? Did we look at it? No.

The first lockdown had an element of excusability even if it lacked real thought. The second and third did not. No way.

The exponential growth fantasists are demonstrably that - fantasists. Name a country where the covid growth has been constant and exponential - nowhere

 

[Jonm]

[

You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.

You stated “maybe it's selfish because if you are a pensioner the negative consequences of lockdown are minimal“

Peterterm 1000 replied to this statement telling you about the adverse effect on his stepfather

Your response could easily have been, “I was a bit hasty, of course elderly people have suffered”. Instead you reply “You don't think young people suffered .......” Petertherm 1000 never said young people had not suffered, he was pointing out an elderly person who has suffered.

 

[RobinBHM]

You are saying the government can organise peoples lives better than people can organise their own lives which on one level sounds paternalistic but on the other is total overreach.

The pubs has guidance, they still have guidance, everyone knows the circumstances and the risk. Should it be up to the pub if they open? 100% yes

Unfortunately you haven't understood the point I made.
Nor reality.

minimising infection spread requires collective effort.
Collective effort only, I repeat only, works if it rules based.

Unfortunately those like you and Rorschach cannot get accept the government sets pandemic rules for collective benefit. You both have a narrow view that it's an affront to your liberty and you can't see deeper than that.

Because of that you both argue till your blue in the face using endless misleading and dishonest claims in your pursuit of your belief of "freedom". I have to say, it really is a bit tiresome.


Me personally, as much as I dislike govt putting all these restrictions in place....I understand that ultimately the govt lockdown restrictions actually in all our interests. It's a shame you can't see that.

 

[RobinBHM]

Then I suggest you never drive a car

Strawman.

Furthermore what about the risks we have taken with lockdown on all other deaths and livelihoods? Did we look at it? No

Ah....you think there was a simplistic choice between lockdown and economy.
Or a simplistic choice between NHS managing Covid in hospitals or other healthcare.

If there had been no lockdown and we had allowed herd immunity.....the economy would've been more badly damaged.

In fact had the lockdown been harder and faster, the economy would have recovered faster.


I hate to say it but you seem to be stuck on the same narrative.

It would really be better if this thread wasn't diverted by repeating all the same old arguments......seriously the facts, evidence and data are all out there....please please go and read some, there's a number of leading quality scientific sources you can look at, including nature.com, CDC, JAMA, etc.

 

[Rorschach]

If there had been no lockdown and we had allowed herd immunity.....the economy would've been more badly damaged.

In fact had the lockdown been harder and faster, the economy would have recovered faster.

You have no evidence for either of those statements, they just suit your agenda.

 

[selectortone]

You don't think young people suffered in the same way as your stepfather? It's difficult for everyone in their own way but at least pensioners are financially secure and won't suffer in the long term.

Classic Rorshach trolling. Sorry, fishies not biting today.

 

[Rorschach]

Classic Rorshach trolling. Sorry, fishies not biting today.

Am I wrong? Has your pension gone down?

 

[Jonm]

Ok fine, we can go with that but we also need to redouble the efforts to confirm to people that it is not just covid killing people. There was nowhere near enough iteration of that. Covid was not the only game in town.

I don't recall a rolling news conference for all the other deaths of the day? Old people die of multiples of things

I agree that many people think of “deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive lab-confirmed COVID test” as being the same as “died from Covid” which clearly it is not.

Actually putting the number of deaths in to context by referring to the comparable number of total deaths would be good.

 

[Jonm]

It pains me to agree with you, but you do have a point on this. The numbers do sound shocking, but there are 60 million Brits alive right now and every year nearly a million of them die to be replaced by nearly a million new citizens. In the UK, 450 people die a day of heart disease and about the same die of cancer. Each of those deaths is just as much a family tragedy as a Covid death and arguably worse because for some, that will have followed months or years of treatment, pain and reduced lifestyles.

I am pleased, my comment to Selwyn has resulted in agreement on something between peterterm1000 and Selwyn.

 

[RobinBHM]

You have no evidence for either of those statements, they just suit your agenda.

Yes I do

Here it is:

Based on epidemic trajectories of 25 highly developed countries and 10 US states in the (mobility reduction)–(reproduction number) plane we showed that delay in imposition of nation-wide quarantine elevates the number of infections and deaths, surge of which inevitably has to be suppressed by stringent and sustained lockdown. As a consequence, cumulative mobility reduction and population-normalized cumulative number of COVID-19-associated deaths are significantly correlated and this correlation increases with time. Overall, we demonstrated that, as long as epidemic suppression is the aim, the trade-off between the death toll and economic loss is illusory: high death toll correlates with deep and long-lasting lockdown causing a severe economic downturn

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81869-2

 

[Selwyn]

Unfortunately you haven't understood the point I made.
Nor reality.

minimising infection spread requires collective effort.
Collective effort only, I repeat only, works if it rules based.

Unfortunately those like you and Rorschach cannot get accept the government sets pandemic rules for collective benefit. You both have a narrow view that it's an affront to your liberty and you can't see deeper than that.

Because of that you both argue till your blue in the face using endless misleading and dishonest claims in your pursuit of your belief of "freedom". I have to say, it really is a bit tiresome.


Me personally, as much as I dislike govt putting all these restrictions in place....I understand that ultimately the govt lockdown restrictions actually in all our interests. It's a shame you can't see that.

A govt can argue anything is in our interest if you frame it in a certain way. Especially if they keep repeating the message constantly. Many communist countries did this very successfully.

Collective effort is not only successful if rules based at all - that is coercion. Things work best when everyone has a self interest in making things work. The idea that covid spreads because people "can't behave" is total propaganda.

One day it will sink in with you but you have a narrow view and the answer to everything for you is deeper, harder, faster lockdown. Its incredibly short sighted of you

 

[RobinBHM]

A govt can argue anything is in our interest if you frame it in a certain way.

strawman
where did I say the government argued that?

Many communist countries did this very successfully.

irrelevant

Collective effort is not only successful if rules based at all - that is coercion.

no it isnt

motor cyclists have to wear helmets -coercion?

The idea that covid spreads because people "can't behave" is total propaganda

strawman.

I never suggested that people cant behave.

One day it will sink in with you but you have a narrow view and the answer to everything for you is deeper, harder, faster lockdown

I read and follow trusted authoritative scientific sites

and another strawman, I never said "the answer to everything is deeper harder faster lockdown

what I said is the evidence says faster and harder lockdowns have a lower economic impact.

"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81869-2

Its incredibly short sighted of you

Instead of ad hominems please could you actually provide a counter argument -it is of much greater use to a debate

perhaps you might give a response to the quote above, the one that says:

" Based on epidemic trajectories of 25 highly developed countries and 10 US states in the (mobility reduction)–(reproduction number) plane we showed that delay in imposition of nation-wide quarantine elevates the number of infections and deaths, surge of which inevitably has to be suppressed by stringent and sustained lockdown. As a consequence, cumulative mobility reduction and population-normalized cumulative number of COVID-19-associated deaths are significantly correlated and this correlation increases with time. Overall, we demonstrated that, as long as epidemic suppression is the aim, the trade-off between the death toll and economic loss is illusory: high death toll correlates with deep and long-lasting lockdown causing a severe economic downturn"

note this: "we showed that delay in imposition of nation-wide quarantine elevates the number of infections and deaths, surge of which inevitably has to be suppressed by stringent and sustained lockdown."

that is a quote from a trusted source that directly contradicts your narrative.

please can you provide some evidence that backs your claim the opposite is true.

 

[RobinBHM]

You have no evidence for either of those statements, they just suit your agenda.

I provided the evidence....I guess you didnt like it?

 

[Rorschach]