Coronavirus Thread

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

From a purely selfish point of view, it would have been for 95% + or more people.

No it wouldn't.  Unless 95%+ of people consider permanent growth to be more important than the health of the friends or relatives who would have otherwise been taken from them... which in this country I guess could be the case I suppose.

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

No it wouldn't.  Unless 95%+ of people consider permanent growth to be more important than the health of the friends or relatives who would have otherwise been taken from them... which in this country I guess could be the case I suppose.

That's a difficult question, though, isn't it.  If you ask Mr Smith, which is more important - the wealth of the country or the health of your wife - he would answer the health of his wife.  If you ask the PM, whoever he may be - he would answer the wealth of the country.  The point being that if you can save Mrs Smith's life but at the cost of a 10% cut in GDP and the cost of 50,000 deaths per year because of lack of funds, then even if there are tens of thousand of Mrs Smiths, it's not a deal worth taking.

 

Remember that this is a government that allows 2,000 deaths per year just for the sake of allowing people to have personal, fast, transport.  (And previous governments of all hues have allowed more.)  If you can't even get them to ban or severely restrict the convenience of a car for the sake of 2,000 lives, then you aren't going to get them to wreck the economy beyond measure for the sake of perhaps 50,000 lives.  (I refuse to believe in any government policy that would have meant zero deaths.  We have to accept that many deaths would have happened even if we had had a Spanish style lockdown for two years.)

 

There was a study published years back that suggested Cameron's "austerity" measure cost 130,000 lives.  A seriously flawed study IMO but there is a point behind it.  Cutting public spending costs lives, and if the country's wealth is hit then spending is hit and it costs lives.  You can't run a government based on the health of Mrs. Smith.

[Carl the Llama]

14 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's a difficult question, though, isn't it.  If you ask Mr Smith, which is more important - the wealth of the country or the health of your wife - he would answer the health of his wife.  If you ask the PM, whoever he may be - he would answer the wealth of the country.  The point being that if you can save Mrs Smith's life but at the cost of a 10% cut in GDP and the cost of 50,000 deaths per year because of lack of funds, then even if there are tens of thousand of Mrs Smiths, it's not a deal worth taking.

 

Remember that this is a government that allows 2,000 deaths per year just for the sake of allowing people to have personal, fast, transport.  (And previous governments of all hues have allowed more.)  If you can't even get them to ban or severely restrict the convenience of a car for the sake of 2,000 lives, then you aren't going to get them to wreck the economy beyond measure for the sake of perhaps 50,000 lives.  (I refuse to believe in any government policy that would have meant zero deaths.  We have to accept that many deaths would have happened even if we had had a Spanish style lockdown for two years.)

 

There was a study published years back that suggested Cameron's "austerity" measure cost 130,000 lives.  A seriously flawed study IMO but there is a point behind it.  Cutting public spending costs lives, and if the country's wealth is hit then spending is hit and it costs lives.  You can't run a government based on the health of Mrs. Smith.

The question is would you like take a hit to GDP to protect your citizens and the healthcare industry during a global pandemic or would you prefer to let business carry on as usual and let the bodies pile up so stock prices can continue to do so too?

 

Things like car-related deaths are a false equivalence, that's a risk people knowingly take and even so there are tons of laws regulating their use in hopes of minimising the occurrence and outcomes of accidents.  Not to mention taking cars away would wreak far more havoc on the economy.  Can you even imagine the fallout? Covid is a natural threat which nobody chose to face and puts unprecedented pressure on our healthcare network, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect our PM to recognise the importance of deprioritising GDP in such an extraordinary scenario.  If we can deprioritise it for the sake of 'taking back control' then I don't see why we shouldn't feel similar about wresting control away from this virus.

[dsr-burnley]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The question is would you like take a hit to GDP to protect your citizens and the healthcare industry during a global pandemic or would you prefer to let business carry on as usual and let the bodies pile up so stock prices can continue to do so too?

 

Things like car-related deaths are a false equivalence, that's a risk people knowingly take and even so there are tons of laws regulating their use in hopes of minimising the occurrence and outcomes of accidents.  Not to mention taking cars away would wreak far more havoc on the economy.  Can you even imagine the fallout? Covid is a natural threat which nobody chose to face and puts unprecedented pressure on our healthcare network, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect our PM to recognise the importance of deprioritising GDP in such an extraordinary scenario.  If we can deprioritise it for the sake of 'taking back control' then I don't see why we shouldn't feel similar about wresting control away from this virus.

What a ridiculously loaded question.  What about asking it the other way round - would you destroy the economy and shatter the NHS's funding for decades to come causing millions of deaths, for the sake of allowing a small proportion of 150,000 to live a few months or (in some cases) years longer?

 

No-one with any sense aimed to save every single life at no matter what cost to the economy, and no-one with any sense aimed to protect the economy at no matter what cost to human life.  A balance had to be struck on a sliding scale, and if you or me or anyone else claimed to know exactly where on that scale was the "right" place to be, I think we would be deluding ourselves.  It's a balance.  

[Foxdiamond]

Not covid vaccine question though related to mandates. Are HM Forces required to take other vaccines if serving overseas where certain diseases are prevalent 

[WigstonWanderer]

11 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Not covid vaccine question though related to mandates. Are HM Forces required to take other vaccines if serving overseas where certain diseases are prevalent 

Can’t speak for now, but I well remember when our family spent a year in Singapore in the sixties we had to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases. My father wasn’t actually in the forces, but was a civilian working for a firm supplying the RAF.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

What a ridiculously loaded question.  What about asking it the other way round - would you destroy the economy and shatter the NHS's funding for decades to come causing millions of deaths, for the sake of allowing a small proportion of 150,000 to live a few months or (in some cases) years longer?

 

No-one with any sense aimed to save every single life at no matter what cost to the economy, and no-one with any sense aimed to protect the economy at no matter what cost to human life.  A balance had to be struck on a sliding scale, and if you or me or anyone else claimed to know exactly where on that scale was the "right" place to be, I think we would be deluding ourselves.  It's a balance.  

That's a bit unfair when I'm responding to your own loaded example in your prior comment.  Anyway I'm well aware of a need for balance, this all stemmed from the suggestion that Mr Johnson would rather have left everything open as though that's a good thing and that 95+% people agree, my argument's that most people understand the need to balance the importance of economic growth against public health in a moment like this, as should a good PM, so I'm not sure what it is that you take issue with if that's also your stance.

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Can’t speak for now, but I well remember when our family spent a year in Singapore in the sixties we had to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases. My father wasn’t actually in the forces, but was a civilian working for a firm supplying the RAF.

Thanks for information.  Suggests there has been a precedent of sorts

[WigstonWanderer]

45 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's a bit unfair when I'm responding to your own loaded example in your prior comment.  Anyway I'm well aware of a need for balance, this all stemmed from the suggestion that Mr Johnson would rather have left everything open as though that's a good thing and that 95+% people agree, my argument's that most people understand the need to balance the importance of economic growth against public health in a moment like this, as should a good PM, so I'm not sure what it is that you take issue with if that's also your stance.

Also, economic outcomes tend to go hand in hand with public health. Letting the virus rip in 2020 on an unvaccinated population, when there weren’t any treatments available would have been disastrous, not just for health outcomes but also economically.

 

Yes, there is a balance to be struck, but that balance is very different now, with Omicron and a vaccinated population than it was back then with the Wuhan and Alpha strains and a vulnerable population, something that tends to go unacknowledged by all the “stopped clock” commentary in this thread.

Edited 16 January 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[fuchsntf]

18 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Can’t speak for now, but I well remember when our family spent a year in Singapore in the sixties we had to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases. My father wasn’t actually in the forces, but was a civilian working for a firm supplying the RAF.

In the 50-70s, most regular travellers had a vaccine certificate...

you wouldnt be allowed to leave airport/Transit/disembarc if you hadnt vaccinated..

No thought of moaning or being contraire...

Most volunteer/help/Refuge/technical Civilian Service Foreign /expat personelle took it in their stride.I

Some weird modern,cynical,conspiracy Selfish thoughts floating around Todays societies.Though some will give their last Political Stance to protect a morally corrupt

Western Government...

 

 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

I'm yet to have the booster as I got covid at the end of the year. Will being double vaccinated be enough if the end game is near, or will I still need a booster that is less protective than the antibodies from catching it? 

 

I had quite bad side effects to the 2nd dose, so I'm still wondering what to do now that I caught it. I think the only thing that would make me have it is foreign travel if its essential. 

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, fuchsntf said:

In the 50-70s, most regular travellers had a vaccine certificate...

you wouldnt be allowed to leave airport/Transit/disembarc if you hadnt vaccinated..

No thought of moaning or being contraire...

Most volunteer/help/Refuge/technical Civilian Service Foreign /expat personelle took it in their stride.I

Some weird modern,cynical,conspiracy Selfish thoughts floating around Todays societies.Though some will give their last Political Stance to protect a morally corrupt

Western Government...

 

 

 

 

Great post

[Milo]

2 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Not covid vaccine question though related to mandates. Are HM Forces required to take other vaccines if serving overseas where certain diseases are prevalent 

I used to have to have a shed load of vaccines for my job. From memory; yellow fever Hep A, cholera, typhoid…and I think a meningitis one as well.
 

(And they were logged in a little book, almost like a passport for vaccinations). 
 

Really wasn’t a huge issue. 

Edited 16 January 2022 by Milo

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

I used to have to have a shed load of vaccines for my job. From memory; yellow fever Hep A, cholera, typhoid…and I think a meningitis one as well.
 

(And they were logged in a little book, almost like a passport vaccinations). 
 

Really wasn’t a huge issue. 

Thank you. Interesting how attitudes were different 

[whoareyaaa]

11 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Thank you. Interesting how attitudes were different 

At least you had a choice though.

[Foxdiamond]

Just now, whoareyaaa said:

At least you had a choice though.

I'm assuming not if you wanted the job.

[RonnieTodger]

How shit are these 24-team tournaments?

 

9 group games to effectively get rid of one team, is a colossal waste of time.

 

No team should finish 3rd out of 4 and then qualify. It annoyed me at the euros and now they’re doing it at AFCON.

[Soar Fox]

2 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

How shit are these 24-team tournaments?

 

9 group games to effectively get rid of one team, is a colossal waste of time.

 

No team should finish 3rd out of 4 and then qualify. It annoyed me at the euros and now they’re doing it at AFCON.

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

At least you had a choice though.

If you wanted to travel,Work & Stay at your destinations of choice....you had no choice, Plus for vaccination steps mean you might Need to wait anything from

1-3 months. Volunteer , paid projects,simple travel needed planning...Maybe with Land  local Booster underway.

Why would One travel through a cholera/Yellow Fever country, etc...knowing you could Catch it and spread it...

Like I mentioned weird modern thoughts..!!

[HighPeakFox]

48 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

How shit are these 24-team tournaments?

 

9 group games to effectively get rid of one team, is a colossal waste of time.

 

No team should finish 3rd out of 4 and then qualify. It annoyed me at the euros and now they’re doing it at AFCON.

You deserve a ban for misdirection 

[Milo]

9 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

At least you had a choice though.

Of course you had a choice - have the vaccines to be able to do what you want to do, or don’t have the vaccines and not do what it is you want to do. 
 

 

[CosbehFox]

8 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:

How shit are these 24-team tournaments?

 

9 group games to effectively get rid of one team, is a colossal waste of time.

 

No team should finish 3rd out of 4 and then qualify. It annoyed me at the euros and now they’re doing it at AFCON.

I know the Tories use ‘black cats to misdirect the conversation. But bemoaning the 24 team tournament set up on forums really is scrapping the barrel to alter the polls 

[Soup]

31 minutes ago, Milo said:

Of course you had a choice - have the vaccines to be able to do what you want to do, or don’t have the vaccines and not do what it is you want to do. 
 

 

You have a right to think what you want but for me taking things away from people until they say yes is not a choice.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Soup said:

You have a right to think what you want but for me taking things away from people until they say yes is not a choice.

It is a choice.

 

It is not a choice that the chooser might like, but it is a choice, nonetheless.

 

Technicality, I know, but it's not the only area of life where one has to choose between two or more horrible options.

Edited 17 January 2022 by leicsmac

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

Of course you had a choice - have the vaccines to be able to do what you want to do, or don’t have the vaccines and not do what it is you want to do. 
 

 

The point being made is it comparable to NHS workers tu