Covid Roll Call

[grobyfox1990]

18 minutes ago, Otis said:

Yeah. No one cares mate, chances are you'll be fine.... off you trot... bleeding attention seekers everywhere these days.

Lol,  not really what I was getting at. More the thought that anyone in 2024 could possibly think they’ve never had covid before, by putting so much faith and trust in a 2p piece of plastic from Shenzhen.

 

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Otis said:

It's been a year now and we're still stuck on page 1 hearing the same stories, is anything new being learnt. 

 

I think some people still need convincing as to the seriousness of it all, yes.

 

But of course the path forward to make sure the world in general is better prepared next time is the most important thing. I say it so often but it bears repeating - acts of nature, even when directly caused by humans, can cause death and suffering on a scale that would make even the most psychotic dictators green with envy. There needs to be more attention placed on them and their consequences, especially when such things often produce more of the human-shaped boogeymen due to the pressure they exert anyway.

[MPH]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Context was the post I was responding to 

 

extreme satire 

Please excuse me. It’s hard to tell sometimes!

[Sly]

Covid doesn’t have the mortality rate of Ebola, Marburg, Rabies, HIV etc. However if the next virus that impacts humanity has the transmission rate of Covid and Death % of Marburg we’d wipe out half the worlds population. 

 

Was it not as simple as COVID 19, was so easily passed on, even with what seems a relatively low mortality rate at 1%, the overall death toll was significant. 
 

Hence the reason to stop the spread, lock everyone away from each other so the NHS isn’t totally overwhelmed. The virus in simple turns burned itself out by not being able to get passed on.
 

That logic always made sense to me, albeit we were learning on the job. Some countries did better than others. It could have been worse, it could have been better.
 

The human race need to build a natural resistance, or receive a vaccine to reduce the impact. 
 

I think it is as simple that recording a death as “Covid” was maybe the straw that broke the camels back. When you hear how out of control intensive care units were at their peak, in reality, they were in survival mode and just simply trying to cope. Logging cause of death maybe wasn’t the top priority.

 

How many people are ultimately killed by pneumonia, rather than the other symptoms they have? If the body has a weakened immune system immune system, it will always be the final blow that is deemed to have killed you, not the 40 cuts before. 
 

The overall death toll is still tragic, thankfully a vaccine was engineered quickly to counter the devastating impact it was having. Without that, the world would still largely be upside down. 

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

20 hours ago, Sly said:

Covid doesn’t have the mortality rate of Ebola, Marburg, Rabies, HIV etc. However if the next virus that impacts humanity has the transmission rate of Covid and Death % of Marburg we’d wipe out half the worlds population. 

 

Was it not as simple as COVID 19, was so easily passed on, even with what seems a relatively low mortality rate at 1%, the overall death toll was significant. 
 

Hence the reason to stop the spread, lock everyone away from each other so the NHS isn’t totally overwhelmed. The virus in simple turns burned itself out by not being able to get passed on.
 

That logic always made sense to me, albeit we were learning on the job. Some countries did better than others. It could have been worse, it could have been better.
 

The human race need to build a natural resistance, or receive a vaccine to reduce the impact. 
 

I think it is as simple that recording a death as “Covid” was maybe the straw that broke the camels back. When you hear how out of control intensive care units were at their peak, in reality, they were in survival mode and just simply trying to cope. Logging cause of death maybe wasn’t the top priority.

 

How many people are ultimately killed by pneumonia, rather than the other symptoms they have? If the body has a weakened immune system immune system, it will always be the final blow that is deemed to have killed you, not the 40 cuts before. 
 

The overall death toll is still tragic, thankfully a vaccine was engineered quickly to counter the devastating impact it was having. Without that, the world would still largely be upside down. 

 

 

The logic that the virus disappeared because it burned out, is false logic.  The virus didn't disappear.  It's still here.  

 

Even in China, where their version of lockdown literally meant locking all infected people away, they couldn't stop the spread.  And in this country, there were far too many people moving around to stop the spread.  The whole food chain, from farming to manufacture to shops to delivery, ran more or less as normal.  Hospitals obviously kept going and spread the virus.  Manufacturing kept going, mostly.  I've seen lockdown described as rich people self-isolating at home while poor people fetched them stuff, and there is enough truth in that to put the kibosh on any idea of eliminating the virus by stopping it spreading.

[dsr-burnley]

On 26/09/2024 at 20:54, leicsmac said:

230,000 odd people inside of a couple of years is an awful lot of people to watch die in pretty horrible fashion - whether they were more vulnerable to it shouldn't really come into it unless one wants to make the argument that they were somehow deserving of it - Just World Fallacy?

 

I would hope that folks consider the testimony of those giving it right now pretty carefully and show at least some basic empathy for those who died, in numbers and in misery, and for those who tried to help them but couldn't and had to move onto the next body, again and again.

Whether they were vulnerable has to come into it, unfortunately.  Covid was not a matter of saving as many lives as possible with no negative impact on the rest of society.  Even the NHS has to make calculations, whether formal or gut feeling, in allocating resources to the ones who will get most benefit.  Case in point - if they have one heart and two people who could benefit from the transplant, then all else being equal it will go to the 10 year old not the 80 year old.  The age and vulnerability of the potential recipients does count.

 

What the drawn-out enquiry ought to do (but probably won't) is to assess whether the positive effects of lockdown outweighed the negative, and whether it was the right thing to do on each of the four times it was proposed or implemented.  When it comes to excess deaths, it is at least possible to compare the "worth" of a life lost to covid compared with a life lost later to undiagnosed cancer, and hopefully a fair effort can be made at reckoning the numbers.  It's harder to evaluate the worth of a life lost to covid compared with the effect on children of missing close to 2 years' school.  Or for that matter the worth of a life lost to covid with the worth of the lives of the old people who spent a year or two in miserable loneliness and died anyway.  But it's all relevant.

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Whether they were vulnerable has to come into it, unfortunately.  Covid was not a matter of saving as many lives as possible with no negative impact on the rest of society.  Even the NHS has to make calculations, whether formal or gut feeling, in allocating resources to the ones who will get most benefit.  Case in point - if they have one heart and two people who could benefit from the transplant, then all else being equal it will go to the 10 year old not the 80 year old.  The age and vulnerability of the potential recipients does count.

 

Certainly any entity with limited resources has to make decisions like this - but I'm not sure how much that has to do with the attitude of some people that rather clearly infers they're happy for the vulnerable to risk death (and actually die) as long as their own lives are not impacted in any way at all.

 

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

What the drawn-out enquiry ought to do (but probably won't) is to assess whether the positive effects of lockdown outweighed the negative, and whether it was the right thing to do on each of the four times it was proposed or implemented.  When it comes to excess deaths, it is at least possible to compare the "worth" of a life lost to covid compared with a life lost later to undiagnosed cancer, and hopefully a fair effort can be made at reckoning the numbers.  It's harder to evaluate the worth of a life lost to covid compared with the effect on children of missing close to 2 years' school.  Or for that matter the worth of a life lost to covid with the worth of the lives of the old people who spent a year or two in miserable loneliness and died anyway.  But it's all relevant.

IMO the true value in this enquiry will be an established strategy to deal with such natural disasters going forward, yes. But that being said, in the absence of a control group, controlled variables or repeated testing it's always going to be inconclusive about whether or not one particular strategy would have worked much better than another and the next one that comes along may be much, much worse than Covid, so such a strategy will clearly have to be flexible and have multiple different outputs and cover multiple scenarios.