Coronavirus | Page 11 | Vital Football

Coronavirus

Brendan Bradley said:
The reality is that for healthy people under 50 with no underlying health issues - or not obese, the chances of dying from it are incredibly slim

For age group 20-29 about 2 million/1
For age group 30-39 about 500,000/1
For age group 40-49 about 200,000/1

There's no real need for anyone in those age groups to be held in this current stasis, and anyone over 50 is mature enough to make their own mind up about whether they want to take the risk of returning to a more normal life.
Click to expand...

Well, no real reason apart from spreading the virus. How do you propose to protect vulnerable people?

Even *with* the lock-down 30k are dead in the UK. What's your acceptable death-toll?
 
Brendan Bradley said:
The reality is that for healthy people under 50 with no underlying health issues - or not obese, the chances of dying from it are incredibly slim

For age group 20-29 about 2 million/1
For age group 30-39 about 500,000/1
For age group 40-49 about 200,000/1

There's no real need for anyone in those age groups to be held in this current stasis, and anyone over 50 is mature enough to make their own mind up about whether they want to take the risk of returning to a more normal life.
Click to expand...

For the record I think your libertarian politics is disgusting. You seem happy for people to die just so you can live a "normal life". Fuck off.
 
And I bet if you were in a vulnerable group you'd be the first bleating about your right not to be infected. Fucking hypocrite.
 
Still, reading between the lines I gather you might be experiencing some financial pain owing to coronavirus, Brendan Bradley. Good, I hope it bites. Karma, motherfucker.

Btw, I'm all right, Jack. ;)
 
NottyImp said:
Well, no real reason apart from spreading the virus. How do you propose to protect vulnerable people?

Even *with* the lock-down 30k are dead in the UK. What's your acceptable death-toll?
Click to expand...

Don't be so fucking stupid.

Vulnerable people can easily isolate just as they're having to now. There is absolutely no difference in their situation.

On the other hand, it's been known for weeks that thousands are going to die from not having other serious illnesses such as cancer attended to because people are too afraid to go out and get them diagnosed.

That, along with the negative effects of an economic depression will kill many thousands more than Covid19, which affects a very easily determined demographic.

I'm sick of holier-than-thou fuckwits thinking they know who or what I am, or that I "don't care". I care as much as you do, you dimwitted pillock.

So fuck off again yourself, you unthinking dopey twat.
 
Last edited:
Brendan Bradley said:
Don't be so fucking stupid.

Vulnerable people can easily isolate just as they're having to now. There is absolutely no difference in their situation.

On the other hand, it's been known for weeks that thousands are going to die from not having other serious illnesses such as cancer attended to because people are too afraid to go out and get them diagnosed.

That, along with the negative effects of an economic depression will kill many thousands more than Covid19, which affects a very easily determined demographic.

I'm sick of holier-than-thou fuckwits thinking they know who or what I am, or that I "don't care". I care as much as you do, you dimwitted pillock.

So fuck off again yourself, you unthinking dopey twat.
Click to expand...

I've already covered those issues in other posts. I'm fully aware of those issues.

Got to you, there, didn't I? You're not nearly as clever as you think you are and your politics is shit.

But glad to hear you "care". Your empathy oozes from every post.

Still, hopefully soon you'll be able to watch football and drink lattes in your local cafe.

Btw, what's your job? I'm guessing your some kind of financial leech. Hope it all goes tits up. Karma, bitch.
 
"Vulnerable people can easily isolate just as they're having to now. There is absolutely no difference in their situation. "

Vulnerable people are dying in their droves already. Lifting restrictions will just kill more of them, they cannot be shielded. No country has successfully done that so far except for draconian measures imposed by authoritarian regimes, or countries that got testing, isolation and quarantine correct at the very beginning of their outbreak. We know so little about this virus, so, so little...
 
Sincilbanks said:
"Vulnerable people can easily isolate just as they're having to now. There is absolutely no difference in their situation. "

Vulnerable people are dying in their droves already. Lifting restrictions will just kill more of them, they cannot be shielded. No country has successfully done that so far except for draconian measures imposed by authoritarian regimes, or countries that got testing, isolation and quarantine correct at the very beginning of their outbreak. We know so little about this virus, so, so little...
Click to expand...

Whatever. This is all getting in the way of Brendan Bradley living his normal life and making shit tons of money from whatever his socially useless occupation is.

Get with the libertarian programme dude! The only thing that matters is the individual. Fuck everyone else. Just die already.
 
Well, this is interesting..

The governor of Maryland ordered half a million tests from South Korea. He has to guard this shipment with National Guard in an undisclosed location because he's afraid the Federal government (that's his federal government, his own federal government) from swooping in and appropriating them for the Federal stockpile

https://twitter.com/x/status/1255878355016134656
 
So come on Brendan Bradley, what's your occupation? Just for the record, I help disabled students get the support they need to study successfuly.

He'll, I'm no saint. But what do you do?

And where does your self-confessed libertarian politics come from? What makes you think your so fucking special?

I'm glad I got to you. Despite everything, you might actually be a human.

You're obviously bright. Fucking think.
 
Sincilbanks said:
And see Neil Ferguson's rebuttal, put in the this thread earlier. No-one has successfully protected their vulnerable people, in fact Swedish experts describe their attempts as a "tragic failure". Ferguson estimates in the video I linked that if attempts to shield the vulnerable were 80% successful we are consigning 100,000 people to their deaths.

If Japan isn't testing they don't know how many cases they have either.

Sweden has received a lot of criticism from experts within Sweden, not just elsewhere.
Click to expand...

"No-one has successfully protected their vulnerable people" is a big statement... are you referring to just Sweden or the response of countries worldwide to Covid?
 
Sincilbanks said:
From your very own source..

Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism.
Click to expand...
So just for clarity, did you think that the conclusion reached from the four numbered points I made in my previous post was complete bunkum? And that it would not be sensible for anyone to reach a similar conclusion?

Might I also point out that the quote you've copied here - "Vaccines do not cause autism" - is clearly a very sweeping and generalised conclusion on ALL vaccines, when actually the issue I had raised in my previous post related to the controversial MMR vaccine specifically.

For the record, I'd most certainly agree that vaccines per se do not cause autism. After all, I (and I dare say you) went through a vaccination programme at school and I didn't see anyone coming out the other side with autism, or having febrile seizures after their admission.

Being concise is not my strong point - and getting acknowledgment or concession from any of the points I raise in response to your posts is an even bigger issue (!!) - however, I'd be very interested in your answers to the following:

1. Given the lack of scientific knowledge on the causes of autism; the fact that epilepsy and autism frequently occur together but it is not understood why; and that the MMR vaccine is known to induce febrile seizures in children, which in turn can lead to 2-4% of children developing epilepsy, would it be more appropriate for the medical and scientific community to say they don't know whether the vaccine causes autism, rather than dismiss the link entirely?

2. This may be dependant to your answer to number 1, but might the fact that the medical/scientific community do not believe there is any link might be because admitting that it does would cause horrendous issues for the entire pharmaceutical and medical profession, and mistrust in all modern vaccinations (with the potential world health issues that would follow if people no longer trusted even the most tried and trusted vaccines on polio, TB etc.)?
 
So, let’s talk about lock-down as some people don’t seem to get it. First and foremost, lock-down represents a failure of policy and practice. The classic way to control a pandemic is: test, trace, isolate combined with “go in hard, go in early” and some form of social distancing. If you do that, you can be successful, with Korea being the current front-runner for this tried-and-tested approach.

But in the UK, we didn’t do this. To show how laissez-faire we were about SARS-CoV-2, on the day Italy imposed a lock-down in the most affected areas, passengers returning on planes from those areas were not tested and were allowed to travel home on public transport.

What the UK allowed to happen was for the virus to spread largely unchecked for several weeks. To understand why that matters, you need to know a little bit about SARS-CoV-2. First, it’s R-number (a measure of how many people, on average, one infected person will go on to infect) is very high. Early estimates suggested 2.5, figures now seem to suggest R as high as 3.

Scientists were shocked by this finding, because that number is really high for a virus. Seasonal ‘flu is around 1.3 – to 1.4. What it means is that, unchecked, the virus will spread like wildfire through a population.

The reason for this high R number are really interesting epidemiologically. The biggest contributor is that the average period a person is contagious before showing symptoms is 5 days. Again, scientists were shocked by this. SARS and MERS patients (also coronaviruses) only really become infectious when symptoms are obvious. So, you can wander around for 5 days infecting other people completely unaware that you are doing so.

What else do we know? The second thing is how lethal the virus is, it’s infection fatality rate (IFR). Current estimates from serology tests in NY suggest this is around 0.6% – 0.8%. Now, that’s *not* incredibly high. It’s much worse than seasonal ‘flu (H1N1 from 2009 comes in at 0.02%), but nothing like SARS or MERS, where the IFR is 20%.

Still, if left unchecked, the lowest estimate would still kill 390,000 people in the UK.

But here’s the real kicker. Reports coming out of Italy suggested that at least 10% of people who develop Covid-19 need hospital treatment, overall. Again, this is an estimate and possibly a low one – we’ll know more later.

So, let’s “do the math”. Modelling suggests that a virus with R=3 will infect roughly 80% of the population before herd immunity is achieved (as a general rule, the higher R, the higher percentage need to acquire the disease to achieve herd immunity).

The UK has a population of around 65 million. 80% of that is 54 million, 10% of that is 5.4 million. That last figure is the number of hospitalisations the virus could cause. 5.4 million.

I need hardly stress that that figure would destroy any health system in the world in a matter of weeks, resulting in many more excess deaths from both untreated Covid-19 patients and untreated patients with other health conditions.

That’s what the government saw coming down the tubes. Having failed to control the virus in the early stages in the classical manner, they had only one option: lock-down. The virus was simply too widespread and too contagious for anything else to work and prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. The same happened in Italy, France and Spain. It is currently happening in the US.

The government could have put all this information together weeks earlier, as it was already out there. But they didn’t, so we are where we are.
 
As a coda to the above: even with lock-down, the government's "we'll be doing well" target of 20,000 deaths has been surpassed. It's probably closer to 30,000 and it's not over yet.

But the lock-down has prevented the NHS being overwhelmed. It's highly amusing to see some people basically saying "well, the NHS is fine so what's all the fuss about? Maybe this coronavirus isn't so bad after all"

Firstly, it isn't fine, it's under massive stress. Secondly, it hasn't been overwhelmed because of lock-down.
 
NottyImp said:
As a coda to the above: even with lock-down, the government's "we'll be doing well" target of 20,000 deaths has been surpassed. It's probably closer to 30,000 and it's not over yet.

But the lock-down has prevented the NHS being overwhelmed. It's highly amusing to see some people basically saying "well, the NHS is fine so what's all the fuss about? Maybe this coronavirus isn't so bad after all"

Firstly, it isn't fine, it's under massive stress. Secondly, it hasn't been overwhelmed because of lock-down.
Click to expand...

You have this spot on. Friday/Saturday nights in A&E not filled with pissed up buffoons has been the key to the NHS having the chance to deal with the outbreak. Yes the death numbers are awful but without the lock-down measures which in all honesty could have been more severe , those death numbers could easily have been 5X worse.
 
NottyImp said:
So, let’s talk about lock-down as some people don’t seem to get it. First and foremost, lock-down represents a failure of policy and practice. The classic way to control a pandemic is: test, trace, isolate combined with “go in hard, go in early” and some form of social distancing. If you do that, you can be successful, with Korea being the current front-runner for this tried-and-tested approach.

But in the UK, we didn’t do this. To show how laissez-faire we were about SARS-CoV-2, on the day Italy imposed a lock-down in the most affected areas, passengers returning on planes from those areas were not tested and were allowed to travel home on public transport.

What the UK allowed to happen was for the virus to spread largely unchecked for several weeks. To understand why that matters, you need to know a little bit about SARS-CoV-2. First, it’s R-number (a measure of how many people, on average, one infected person will go on to infect) is very high. Early estimates suggested 2.5, figures now seem to suggest R as high as 3.

Scientists were shocked by this finding, because that number is really high for a virus. Seasonal ‘flu is around 1.3 – to 1.4. What it means is that, unchecked, the virus will spread like wildfire through a population.

The reason for this high R number are really interesting epidemiologically. The biggest contributor is that the average period a person is contagious before showing symptoms is 5 days. Again, scientists were shocked by this. SARS and MERS patients (also coronaviruses) only really become infectious when symptoms are obvious. So, you can wander around for 5 days infecting other people completely unaware that you are doing so.

What else do we know? The second thing is how lethal the virus is, it’s infection fatality rate (IFR). Current estimates from serology tests in NY suggest this is around 0.6% – 0.8%. Now, that’s *not* incredibly high. It’s much worse than seasonal ‘flu (H1N1 from 2009 comes in at 0.02%), but nothing like SARS or MERS, where the IFR is 20%.

Still, if left unchecked, the lowest estimate would still kill 390,000 people in the UK.

But here’s the real kicker. Reports coming out of Italy suggested that at least 10% of people who develop Covid-19 need hospital treatment, overall. Again, this is an estimate and possibly a low one – we’ll know more later.

So, let’s “do the math”. Modelling suggests that a virus with R=3 will infect roughly 80% of the population before herd immunity is achieved (as a general rule, the higher R, the higher percentage need to acquire the disease to achieve herd immunity).

The UK has a population of around 65 million. 80% of that is 54 million, 10% of that is 5.4 million. That last figure is the number of hospitalisations the virus could cause. 5.4 million.

I need hardly stress that that figure would destroy any health system in the world in a matter of weeks, resulting in many more excess deaths from both untreated Covid-19 patients and untreated patients with other health conditions.

That’s what the government saw coming down the tubes. Having failed to control the virus in the early stages in the classical manner, they had only one option: lock-down. The virus was simply too widespread and too contagious for anything else to work and prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. The same happened in Italy, France and Spain. It is currently happening in the US.

The government could have put all this information together weeks earlier, as it was already out there. But they didn’t, so we are where we are.
Click to expand...
A top post fella. And that’s coming from a lock-down sceptic!
 
79imp said:
A top post fella. And that’s coming from a lock-down sceptic!
Click to expand...

Lol. For sure. Lock-down sucks and nobody wants it. We fucked it up, I'm afraid. As you said, look at Japan. They jumped all over it from day 1 and are in a much, much better position now than we are. So did Taiwan who actually implemented containment 2 weeks ahead of China.

You can do it, but you need a competent government.
 
79imp said:
"No-one has successfully protected their vulnerable people" is a big statement... are you referring to just Sweden or the response of countries worldwide to Covid?
Click to expand...

It's not my statement it's the statement of Prof Neil Ferguson in an interview

Start at 16:10 for the discussion around "shielding the vulnerable" strategy. Quote from 16:20 "Every country has failed to do that.."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.