Coronavirus | Page 13 | Vital Football

Coronavirus

NottyImp said:
It's essentially an ethical and political argument at this point. I think my response would be that governments make all sorts of things mandatory that impact on our freedoms. They also prohibit all sorts of behaviours by law, of course.

Medical treatments sometimes fall under that rubric, especially when the treatment of minors is under consideration. Sometimes, those disputes end up in court.

My own view is that it's much, much better to persuade people to take a good decision freely than force them to. We're all liberals of one kind or another here, right? ;)

However, there's also the "greater good" argument and that has merits as well. With little to no evidence that the standard range of vaccinations cause any major difficulties, I would be less - rather than more - concerned about mandatory vaccination being introduced.
Click to expand...
Fair dos mate. As usual, I totally see where you’re coming from, and agree with much of what you’ve said... and very much so on the line that it’s far more preferable to persuade people to take a good decision freely. What a shame that all went south when it came to Brexit!
 
US bumping along with an Rnought of 1. This is not good news for reducing the virus totals there. I can't see any of the opening up measures being taken over there doing anything but raising it back above 1.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256090423120015361

The US lost as many people in April as in 10 years of the Vietnam war, give or take. Given this Rnought value, they can prepare for another dose of the same in May.
 
4. Further to point 3, and having heard personal testimonies of parents whose children have been very seriously affected after the admission of the MMR vaccine a few years ago, I felt compelled to dig further into the reasons why MMR is so controversial. And so whilst Mr Sincilbanks wishes to dismiss the conclusion I reached (and probably many other people reached) as 'hypothesis' (a hypothesis based around data and scientific knowledge it must be said), or the personal testimony of a parent whose previously healthy child now has autism as 'anecdotal', my feeling is there are enough question marks - serious question marks at that - against MMR to warrant doubts about their safety. And when put into the context that this is a modern vaccine and we live in a world where American pharmaceutical companies cannot be prosecuted for death or injury as a result of vaccines, then I feel that having a healthy scepticism and a curiosity is not only prudent, but potentially life-saving. If you disagree with that, that is absolutely fine; but all I do hope is that you recognise it's a position reached through research and an application of reasonably intelligent critical thinking, rather than the blind ramblings of a crank or nutter.

The MMR vaccine has been in use since 1988, ie 32 years.

If you've reached your position through research, please show some.

Yours or anybody else's personal testimony does not qualify as scientific analysis. So you're absolutely correct, I dismiss that personal testimony. (Which absolutely should not be confused with me having no sympathy for those affected and impacted by autism)

You can have all the "feelings" you like, none of that is evidence.

Here's the CDC in America on the relationship between MMR and autism
Because signs of autism may appear around the same time children receive the MMR vaccine, some parents may worry that the vaccine causes autism. Vaccine safety experts, including experts at CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), agree that MMR vaccine is not responsible for recent increases in the number of children with autism.

The state or non-state of US vaccine litigation is completely irrelevant as to whether the MMR vaccine causes autism.
You might have some dark conspiracy theory etc. as to why the US is blocking such research, you might even have some theories as to who is paying for all these research papers and studies with results saying the MMR vaccine is not causing autism, but I think you should apply some critical thinking and see if there's any evidence for that. Hell "Big Pharma" is guilty of telling some massive whoppers at times.

Healthy scepticism and curiosity are entirely laudable, they should be driving you to find some scientific evidence to back them up, so far I haven't seen any you have presented.
 
Sincilbanks said:
4. Further to point 3, and having heard personal testimonies of parents whose children have been very seriously affected after the admission of the MMR vaccine a few years ago, I felt compelled to dig further into the reasons why MMR is so controversial. And so whilst Mr Sincilbanks wishes to dismiss the conclusion I reached (and probably many other people reached) as 'hypothesis' (a hypothesis based around data and scientific knowledge it must be said), or the personal testimony of a parent whose previously healthy child now has autism as 'anecdotal', my feeling is there are enough question marks - serious question marks at that - against MMR to warrant doubts about their safety. And when put into the context that this is a modern vaccine and we live in a world where American pharmaceutical companies cannot be prosecuted for death or injury as a result of vaccines, then I feel that having a healthy scepticism and a curiosity is not only prudent, but potentially life-saving. If you disagree with that, that is absolutely fine; but all I do hope is that you recognise it's a position reached through research and an application of reasonably intelligent critical thinking, rather than the blind ramblings of a crank or nutter.

The MMR vaccine has been in use since 1988, ie 32 years.

If you've reached your position through research, please show some.

Yours or anybody else's personal testimony does not qualify as scientific analysis. So you're absolutely correct, I dismiss that personal testimony. (Which absolutely should not be confused with me having no sympathy for those affected and impacted by autism)

You can have all the "feelings" you like, none of that is evidence.

Here's the CDC in America on the relationship between MMR and autism
Because signs of autism may appear around the same time children receive the MMR vaccine, some parents may worry that the vaccine causes autism. Vaccine safety experts, including experts at CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), agree that MMR vaccine is not responsible for recent increases in the number of children with autism.

The state or non-state of US vaccine litigation is completely irrelevant as to whether the MMR vaccine causes autism.
You might have some dark conspiracy theory etc. as to why the US is blocking such research, you might even have some theories as to who is paying for all these research papers and studies with results saying the MMR vaccine is not causing autism, but I think you should apply some critical thinking and see if there's any evidence for that. Hell "Big Pharma" is guilty of telling some massive whoppers at times.

Healthy scepticism and curiosity are entirely laudable, they should be driving you to find some scientific evidence to back them up, so far I haven't seen any you have presented.
Click to expand...

Sadly mate, I'm going to have to end up repeating myself a bit here.

"Healthy scepticism and curiosity are entirely laudable, they should be driving you to find some scientific evidence to back them up, so far I haven't seen any you have presented."

Before I get properly stuck in, for the record, I've never claimed that a personal testimony equals scientific evidence. What I have said is that these testimonies at least indicate issues that exist and that should be taken seriously.

Anyway, to kick off, let's go back to the original 4 points I made to summarise why I think there is evidence that MMR can cause autism, or that there is at least enough doubt or lack of current scientific knowledge to not rule it out completely.

This is lifted directly from my post on page 10:

"1. The MMR vaccine is known to cause febrile seizures in some children - according to WHO data and reports.

2. 2-4% of children who experience febrile seizures will go on to develop epilepsy.

3. Epilepsy and autism commonly occur together, but scientists/medical professionals do not yet know why.

4. A cause of autism is not known or understood in 85-90% of children."

Sources: https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vaccine_rates_information_sheet.pdf

https://www.autismspeaks.org/expert...s-epilepsy-and-autism-your-questions-answered

It's also probably worth repeating the conclusion I reached previously:

"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?"

I'll most certainly accept that the two links I again shared above show a pretty basic level of research, particularly on point 3. Therefore, I'd encourage you to take a look at this link for more scientific info (do also note the date of the article and the reference to research that is currently ongoing into the links between epilepsy and autism):

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/the-link-between-epilepsy-and-autism-explained/

And here's some more research on the links between febrile seizures and epilepsy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781735/

So, in sum, if all of that doesn't show that I've reached my position through at least some research and rooting in scientific evidence, then I don't know what does. And on that basis, I'd be very honoured if you were able to at least acknowledge that.

This is not directly related and I'm not seeking to open up another avenue for debate here, but I did also note with great interest your comment in the previous post that MMR has been in circulation since 1988. This is the same year that US legislation changed to prevent pharmaceutical companies being prosecuted for death or injury as a result from vaccines. Coincidence? Absolutely could be, but this is definitely something I will continue to keep in mind going forward.

I've shared the link before on this before, but for clarity's sake, here it is again:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

Finally, can I say that genuinely, I've been very grateful for the opportunity to follow up in more detail on the vaccine debate. It's certainly given me plenty of fresh perspective and far more information than I had previously on a topic I always wanted to find out more about. So thank you Sincilbanks for consistently setting me the challenge of doing this. And you're absolutely right by the way... more digging needs to be done on why there might have been an attempt to suppress evidence and research on the link between vaccines (MMR specifically) and autism. I'll continue on with that journey in the weeks and months ahead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From your WHO source:

"Children with a personal or family history of seizures are at greater risk for idiopathic epilepsy, however, febrile seizures after vaccination do not increase the likelihood that epilepsy or other neurological disorders will develop in these children." [My bold]

So your own evidence suggests that your hypothesis - that's all it is - fails at Point 2.

This study states that:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781735/

"Study participants were children below 12 years old who had a diagnostic history of febrile seizures." [My bold]

I.e. a different group of patients to those that may have one atypical seizure after an MMR vaccine. In fact, the study states that they specifically exclude atypical seizures, which would include MMR subjects.

At this point, your line or reasoning is so tenuous as to be untenable. And it still hasn't specifically been scientifically tested as far as I know. That's really all that matters here.

My advice is quite simple: contact a professional medical research body with your hypothesis and ask them what they think and whether it is worth investigating through a study that looks specifically at the links you think you've discovered. You never know, they might say yes!

Doing good science is hard and reading it correctly is also hard.
 
Looks like we might now know why some people who have survived the virus are showing as positive when retested. If true this is more fantastic news

Maria Van Kerkhove, technical lead on Covid-19 for the World Health Organization, is asked about reports from some countries that people have tested positive a second time after recovering from the virus.
She says what is actually happening in these cases is that, as people's lungs heal, some dead cells are showing up in the tests, triggering a positive result where there has been no re-infection.
But she says scientists are still "trying to understand" how strong a level of immunity people will have once they've had the virus.
On the origin of the virus, she says it has had a "natural origin" from bats, although the intermediate species that spread the virus from them to humans is not yet known.
 
"And you're absolutely right by the way... more digging needs to be done on why there might have been an attempt to suppress evidence and research on the link between vaccines (MMR specifically) and autism."

There hasn't been. There are scores of studies on this. None have found a link. I actually linked you to one earlier in the thread which you completely failed to address, with a sample size of over 500,000.
 
Transmission studies underway:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-19-transmission-is-understood-say-scientists

Care-workers now on the front line.

"It is clearly important to find out because aerosols can travel much further than heavier droplets,” said Reid. His team has just constructed a high-containment, automated laboratory containing a device in which clouds of virus-laden aerosol particles can be suspended while researchers alter temperature, humidity, ozone, levels of sunlight and other variables."

Go, science!
 
From your WHO source:

"Children with a personal or family history of seizures are at greater risk for idiopathic epilepsy, however, febrile seizures after vaccination do not increase the likelihood that epilepsy or other neurological disorders will develop in these children." [My bold]

So my understanding here is that vaccinations do not increase the chance of seizures in children from families with a history of seizures/epilepsy. What it doesn't cover - and this is really what I am more interested in - is whether they trigger seizures in kids with no prior history of seizures. The quote you've pulled out doesn't really settle that issue as far as I can tell. My take is that it says a kid whose family have a history of seizures is more likely to develop epilepsy, and that vaccinations do not increase that risk. Or have I missed something else here?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781735/

The study was not shared to prove any link with vaccines, but to show there was scientific evidence to link febrile seizures and epilepsy. This was because I was told previously that I had presented no scientific link in my 'hypothesis'.

To clarify once again, I have not sought to scientifically prove that irrefutable evidence exists to link autism and vaccines - I know there's no mainstream study that proves this because if there was, MMR would have been taken off the shelves years ago. What I have tried to do - upon consistent challenge - is to present the reasons as to why people (including myself) have made such links, and where possible to root this in what science does and doesn't know. I've done this because personally, I find dismissing the links and the people who have suffered directly on this issue somewhat imprudent. However, having said all that, as you quite rightly say, the science out there is complex and there is still so much that is still unknown about autism. Hence why I will continue with an open mind and more active research on vaccines in general.

Finally, I'll also 100% accept that going on mainstream research, the chances of seizure and its attendant dangers are very small; e.g. CDC reports that 0.03% of 100,000 children administered with the flu vaccine may experience seizures (a quick bit of research on MMR indicated slightly higher at 0.05%); however, as these are the types of percentages we're seeing on deaths from coronavirus in the worst-affected European countries (the UK is currently at 0.04%), then perhaps we shouldn't be dismissing this so readily? Obviously there's many angles that could be taken with those figures (vulnerability being the key one), but it's an interesting statistical similarity nonetheless.

Anyway, clearly we're coming at this from vastly different angles so I doubt very much any concession will be coming my way on what I feel is the link that can reasonably be made between vaccines, seizures, epilepsy and autism. All I can hope for is that you can at least see why links can be made between these areas (not holding my breath on that either though... in the nicest possible way I must add!).

Again, very grateful for the opportunity to learn more from this research - and indeed all your learned counter arguments.
 
"So my understanding here is that vaccinations do not increase the chance of seizures in children from families with a history of seizures/epilepsy. What it doesn't cover - and this is really what I am more interested in - is whether they trigger seizures in kids with no prior history of seizures. The quote you've pulled out doesn't really settle that issue as far as I can tell. My take is that it says a kid whose family have a history of seizures is more likely to develop epilepsy, and that vaccinations do not increase that risk. Or have I missed something else here?"

No, I think you're right there, I have misinterpreted that statement and am happy to admit I'm wrong on that point.

Here are, perhaps, the studies I think you need:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/199117

"Long-term Prognosis of Febrile Seizures Following MMR Vaccination
We found that children who experienced febrile seizures within 2 weeks of MMR vaccination had a 19% increased rate of recurrent febrile seizures (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.41) but no increased rate of epilepsy (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33-1.50) during up to 105 months of follow-up. The reference group consisted of children who had not been vaccinated when having their first febrile seizure."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547719

"Conclusions: There are significantly elevated risks of febrile seizures on the day of receipt of DTP vaccine and 8 to 14 days after the receipt of MMR vaccine, but these risks do not appear to be associated with any long-term, adverse consequences."

So, studies have actually looked at exactly the issue you have highlighted and found no increase in epilepsy or adverse occurrences related to MMR febrile seizures. Therefore, as stated previously, your hypothesis is still broken at point 2.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. When you can provide some actual scientifically validated data - as opposed to just an hypothesis of "possible links" that are, in fact, broken - we might be able to re-consider this debate.
 
"Finally, I'll also 100% accept that going on mainstream research, the chances of seizure and its attendant dangers are very small; e.g. CDC reports that 0.03% of 100,000 children administered with the flu vaccine may experience seizures (a quick bit of research on MMR indicated slightly higher at 0.05%); however, as these are the types of percentages we're seeing on deaths from coronavirus in the worst-affected European countries (the UK is currently at 0.04%), then perhaps we shouldn't be dismissing this so readily?"

Where has that figure come from (in bold) and how has it been calculated? As posted previously, the IFR rate tested in New York is 0.6 - 0.8% from the relatively reliable methodology of randomised serology testing.

You can't work an IFR rate out by dividing current deaths (30,000) by the population of the country (65 million) because that assumes everyone has been infected!
 
two departures from mainstream media discussion, looking at lockdown etc
2 views.........but similar criticisms of uk strategy.
did we(government) adopt the wrong model which is going to shaft our economy and deliver large numbers of excess deaths?

There has been a major failure by lots of european governments to protect the most vulnerable in society(care homes).......... social care privatised over time in the uk by stealth by the tories ......a total disgrace!
link1
from 2 weeks ago
link 2
recent discussion
 
Last edited:
devonexlondonimp said:
two departures from mainstream media discussion, looking at lockdown etc
2 views.........but similar criticisms of uk strategy.
did we(government) adopt the wrong model which is going to shaft our economy and deliver large numbers of excess deaths?

major failure by lots of european governments to protect the most vulnerable(care homes) social care privatised over time by stealth by the tories ......a total disgrace!
link1
from 2 weeks ago
link 2
recent discussion
Click to expand...

If you read the thread earlier you'll see my link to an interview by Professor Ferguson from the same channel where he rebuts that analysis.
Has some horrific stats about trying to open up the lockdown while trying to shield the vulnerable. He also says no country in the world has protected their vulnerable people. This isn't about privatised v non-privatised healthcare, it's about how incredibly difficult it is to protect them full stop. Sweden's leading government advisor has described their attempts to protect them as a "tragic failure"

 
"however, as these are the types of percentages we're seeing on deaths from coronavirus in the worst-affected European countries (the UK is currently at 0.04%), then perhaps we shouldn't be dismissing this so readily?"

It really isn't that number. normal influenza has a CFR of 0.1%, are you really suggesting Covid19 is half as lethal as the flu?

CDC reports that 0.03% of 100,000 children administered with the flu vaccine may experience seizures (a quick bit of research on MMR indicated slightly higher at 0.05%)

Although what we could conclude (if we were being specious) is that a child is twice as likely to die from influenza as have a seizure from the MMR vaccine.
"It's just the flu but half as risky.."
 
NottyImp said:
"So my understanding here is that vaccinations do not increase the chance of seizures in children from families with a history of seizures/epilepsy. What it doesn't cover - and this is really what I am more interested in - is whether they trigger seizures in kids with no prior history of seizures. The quote you've pulled out doesn't really settle that issue as far as I can tell. My take is that it says a kid whose family have a history of seizures is more likely to develop epilepsy, and that vaccinations do not increase that risk. Or have I missed something else here?"

No, I think you're right there, I have misinterpreted that statement and am happy to admit I'm wrong on that point.

Here are, perhaps, the studies I think you need:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/199117

"Long-term Prognosis of Febrile Seizures Following MMR Vaccination
We found that children who experienced febrile seizures within 2 weeks of MMR vaccination had a 19% increased rate of recurrent febrile seizures (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.41) but no increased rate of epilepsy (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33-1.50) during up to 105 months of follow-up. The reference group consisted of children who had not been vaccinated when having their first febrile seizure."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547719

"Conclusions: There are significantly elevated risks of febrile seizures on the day of receipt of DTP vaccine and 8 to 14 days after the receipt of MMR vaccine, but these risks do not appear to be associated with any long-term, adverse consequences."

So, studies have actually looked at exactly the issue you have highlighted and found no increase in epilepsy or adverse occurrences related to MMR febrile seizures. Therefore, as stated previously, your hypothesis is still broken at point 2.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. When you can provide some actual scientifically validated data - as opposed to just an hypothesis of "possible links" that are, in fact, broken - we might be able to re-consider this debate.
Click to expand...

"Studies have actually looked at exactly the issue you have highlighted and found no increase in epilepsy or adverse occurrences related to MMR febrile seizures."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/199117

As you said in a previous post Notty, deciphering scientific research is not a simple task, and that would again to be the case here. I'd actually also found the study you linked a few days back, but on closer inspection, the results don't appear to be as conclusive as one might think on first impressions.

Going through with a finer toothcomb, what they appear to have researched is essentially whether there was an increased rate of epilepsy in kids who suffered seizures following admission of the MMR vaccine, compared with kids who were pre-disposed to febrile seizures who had not taken the vaccine. Therefore, this study is not really informative to the fundamental question of whether there have been previously healthy children who have had MMR (or other modern vaccines) and then developed epilepsy and/or autism.

I'm also mindful that this study has come out of Denmark - a country that has already mandated into law a Covid 19 vaccine. Therefore - a giant leap this may be - but I'm mindful of their agenda on the safety of vaccinations. After all, this study certainly seems to be a case in point where face values of the conclusions look somewhat different to the real research that has taken place.

On your other quote...

"Conclusions: There are significantly elevated risks of febrile seizures on the day of receipt of DTP vaccine and 8 to 14 days after the receipt of MMR vaccine, but these risks do not appear to be associated with any long-term, adverse consequences."

I take significant note here of the hedged language. Would a scientist with irrefutable proof use phrases like 'do not appear to be associated' ('are not associated' would surely put them on much firmer footing) if they were 100% sure? To me, this seems further evidence that science does not yet know whether the link definitely exists, perhaps (and this is speculation on my part) because of the significant lack of knowledge generally on the causes of autism. And this isn't a criticism of science, they simply don't know (which has been my point pretty much all along) whether there is 100% safety when it comes to vaccines and autism.

We could end up debating this for months and get nowhere based on the current scientific evidence and our own standpoints; and so like you Sir, I'm tempted to leave things where we are at this point. Therefore, maybe the conclusion I will reach at this point (for me and not for you or others) is that the chances of a child receiving any complications (seizures or worse) from vaccinations are incredibly small, and that other factors such as age and pre-disposition to seizures most certainly come into play when looking at this likelihood. Furthermore, as of 2020, there has been no conclusive study that proves a link between vaccines and autism; however, conversely I am yet to find a study that completely debunks my 4 point hypothesis either (although there's most definitely more research for me to be done there - as indeed there is with issues that have been reported related to the winter flu vaccine).

What I feel we do know is that vaccines have caused febrile seizures; that there is a risk of epilepsy following febrile seizures; that epilepsy and autism frequently occur together; and that the causes of autism are unknown in 85-90% of cases. On this basis, I don't feel my original 4 point hypothesis is broken, nor is it illogical or untenable. However, I totally respect your belief and conclusion that it is, based on the current scientific evidence. After all, clearly you and Sincilbanks are people with complete and implicit trust in science, and that is absolutely fine with me. I guess I just hoped you would have at least seen the logic in the links I - and indeed others - have made, rather than dismiss them entirely.

Anyway, as Sincilbanks alluded to in a previous post - maybe it essentially all comes down to risk and reward. Does a parent take the risk (the very minimal risk) that their child will receive complications as a result of vaccinations, with the odds very, very much in their favour if they were to take that risk? Or do they feel that any kind of risk is not worth taking when their child's mental health is involved given the evidence or indeed non-evidence - anecdotal or otherwise - that is available. Or do we just dismiss these people and forcefully tell them there is absolutely no danger whatsoever? Personally, I would not dismiss or criticise any parent for taking a risk-averse position; after all, applying any sort of risk and reward is very different from guaranteeing 100% safety. And as we're currently living through perhaps our most risk-averse period in history, I'd hope you would also understand why a parent would take that position too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NottyImp said:
"Finally, I'll also 100% accept that going on mainstream research, the chances of seizure and its attendant dangers are very small; e.g. CDC reports that 0.03% of 100,000 children administered with the flu vaccine may experience seizures (a quick bit of research on MMR indicated slightly higher at 0.05%); however, as these are the types of percentages we're seeing on deaths from coronavirus in the worst-affected European countries (the UK is currently at 0.04%), then perhaps we shouldn't be dismissing this so readily?"

Where has that figure come from (in bold) and how has it been calculated? As posted previously, the IFR rate tested in New York is 0.6 - 0.8% from the relatively reliable methodology of randomised serology testing.

You can't work an IFR rate out by dividing current deaths (30,000) by the population of the country (65 million) because that assumes everyone has been infected!
Click to expand...

Very fair and correct point on the IFR rate Notty. I had done the calculation based on numbers of deaths against the total population, primarily because my overly simplistic mind was applying the thinking that with a contagious disease like this, and with the overall message that we all have to stay indoors or apply strict social distancing to avoid getting it, the rate of death on a country's overall population is relevant.

However, clearly it is not when making the comparison with the seizure data I had mentioned, so apologies to you and Mr Sincilbanks (and post liked as you completely correctly debunked me there).
 
Sincilbanks said:
If you read the thread earlier you'll see my link to an interview by Professor Ferguson from the same channel where he rebuts that analysis.
Has some horrific stats about trying to open up the lockdown while trying to shield the vulnerable. He also says no country in the world has protected their vulnerable people. This isn't about privatised v non-privatised healthcare, it's about how incredibly difficult it is to protect them full stop. Sweden's leading government advisor has described their attempts to protect them as a "tragic failure"

Click to expand...

Malaysia are lifting their lockdown today - or at least stage 1 of it - so I will of course be keeping a very close eye how their stats fare as a result.

As I've mentioned previously, their numbers on Covid deaths have been very low compared with Europe and other nations badly hit - 103 the last time I checked over the weekend - with the vast majority of those being in the vulnerable groups we are all aware of.

No-one of course wants to see people dying, but if we're talking on a global perspective, where is the line where we can say a country has or hasn't protected their vulnerable people? Is around 80 deaths of 'vulnerable' people - out of a population of 33,000,000 - over the course of 3 months (including 6 weeks of lockdown) a failure? I personally don't see it that way - although how far that number is attributable to lockdown is also of course an area for lively debate.

There are other countries in south-east Asia who haven't taken such a sharp approach as Malaysia. Vietnam were late to the party on their strictest preventative measures - April 1st was when borders were closed and social distancing mandated across the country, although there had been gradual closures of businesses in some provinces prior to this. Many of the lockdown measures have already been relaxed, and they currently have no recorded Covid deaths.

Thailand is another (54 Covid deaths) who seem to have done ok despite again being late on any kind of lockdown or closure of airports, and they are again relaxing measures this week. This region is therefore probably one to keep quite a close eye on in the days and weeks ahead.

In Europe, you could point to countries such as Norway or the Czech Republic who've had a reasonable number of Covid cases (both around 7,800), but very few Covid deaths (211 and 248 respectively). And of course we have Austria, Switzerland and Germany all exiting lockdowns in some form or other this month. So again, they'll most certainly be ones to watch.

We're obviously talking vastly different figures when it comes to countries like Spain, Italy and the UK, and as you absolutely correctly say, protecting vulnerable people is incredibly difficult whatever the situation. After all, 80,000 people died in the States in 2017 from winter flu - and you can be sure that the vast majority of that figure would have counted in the vulnerable groups.

As a result, there is surely a reality that the elderly or those with serious underlying health conditions are going to succumb to some health issue or other at some point along their life, whether that be flu, Covid-19, organ failure or anything else you care to mention. Therefore, for me, the key point is where do we start saying that the numbers in which they leave us become disproportionate and therefore a massive problem; or that countries have failed in their duty to protect them? And again, I raise these questions as a global issue rather than a UK-centric one, largely in response to the idea that no country has successfully protected their vulnerable people.

Not trolling here or criticising... just genuinely interested in yours and others' take on this as it is surely a fundamental issue along with the very delicate balance of easing lockdown measures to prevent people's livelihoods from being destroyed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.