• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

LutonSpurs said:
Plenty of experts said we could have done it.
Click to expand...
Theoretically, I'm sure it makes great sense.

Practically that just wouldn't work here. You'd need the army on the streets enforcing it.

"We must be free or die, who speak the tongue that Shakespeare spake"
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Yes, I have heard a few Doctors interviewed who are saying the average age for seriously ill covid patients in hospital is now 60.
Whilst anecdotal rather than statistical, based on what they are seeing in their own domains, it is different to what we were hearing last year.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that's the expected result of being really careful around nursing homes. That and a fudgetonne of old people having died in the Spring.
 
scaramanga said:
Or that deaths are not directly attributable to the freedom with which a society operates and are heavily linked to causes outside the control of a govt.
Click to expand...
But again, seeing countries with fewer restrictions get hit as bad economically would indicate that the choice was a false one?

If it was possible to protect the economy more by imposing fewer restrictions wouldn't you expect the countries with fewer restrictions to be doing better in terms of GDP?

Hear me out, this might be controversial, but hear me out. It almost seems like having a higher spread of the virus, leading to more sick people and more people dying, somehow hurts the economy. As if the health of the people operating within the economy matters to the health of the economy.
 
braineclipse said:
But again, seeing countries with fewer restrictions get hit as bad economically would indicate that the choice was a false one?

If it was possible to protect the economy more by imposing fewer restrictions wouldn't you expect the countries with fewer restrictions to be doing better in terms of GDP?

Hear me out, this might be controversial, but hear me out. It almost seems like having a higher spread of the virus, leading to more sick people and more people dying, somehow hurts the economy. As if the health of the people operating within the economy matters to the health of the economy.
Click to expand...
I agree that having a load of sick people doesn't help.

I disagree that lockdowns are the overriding cause for reducing casualties. There have been countries with heavy lockdowns and huge death rates.
 
milo said:
You might find this guy an interesting follow @LutonSpurs. It is going to be really interesting to see the effect of mass vaccination in Israel and what we might be able to expect here in a few months.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1347519012218007564
Click to expand...

Israel is leading the way and will be an excellent benchmark for the rest of the world. If we really see things bottom out there soon we can be really positive about herd immunity with a vaccine in the near future.
scaramanga said:
I agree that having a load of sick people doesn't help.

I disagree that lockdowns are the overriding cause for reducing casualties. There have been countries with heavy lockdowns and huge death rates.
Click to expand...

Heavy lockdowns aren't the same as zero Covid policy driven lockdowns. We had lockdowns here that didn't suppress the spread. We don't have decent test track and trace system. We didn't do lockdown well. Our govt just waited till it was too late and closed parts of society with no idea how and when we would come out of it.

We are where we are due to a multitude of reasons but the fact is we could have done this properly if we had done it properly. Less time with society closed. Economy open again. But we chose not to.

Your issue is that you have always maintained lockdowns bad for the economy and we needed herd immunity and we should have let the virus rip through the society and hide the vulnerable away. That hasn't worked for anyone. And all I would like is for you to admit we effed it. We could have stopped a bunch of people dying. And kept the economy more stable if we had done the opposite to your plan.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Israel is leading the way and will be an excellent benchmark for the rest of the world. If we really see things bottom out there soon we can be really positive about herd immunity with a vaccine in the near future.


Heavy lockdowns aren't the same as zero Covid policy driven lockdowns. We had lockdowns here that didn't suppress the spread. We don't have decent test track and trace system. We didn't do lockdown well. Our govt just waited till it was too late and closed parts of society with no idea how and when we would come out of it.

We are where we are due to a multitude of reasons but the fact is we could have done this properly if we had done it properly. Less time with society closed. Economy open again. But we chose not to.

Your issue is that you have always maintained lockdowns bad for the economy and we needed herd immunity and we should have let the virus rip through the society and hide the vulnerable away. That hasn't worked for anyone. And all I would like is for you to admit we effed it. We could have stopped a bunch of people dying. And kept the economy more stable if we had done the opposite to your plan.
Click to expand...
I would rather people died than we just handed over our freedom to the govt.

Of the only options remaining - stay open and the virus spreads or shut everything down and it spreads anyway, I far prefer the former.
 
scaramanga said:
I agree that having a load of sick people doesn't help.

I disagree that lockdowns are the overriding cause for reducing casualties. There have been countries with heavy lockdowns and huge death rates.
Click to expand...

To again bring it back to the original point about a false choice between the economy and covid protection. You point out nothing that would indicate that it wasn't a false choice. Can I just assume you agree?

Overriding cause, I don't know. Is it an important factor? I think so.

There being countries with heavy lockdowns and high death rates doesn't disprove that at all.
 
braineclipse said:
To again bring it back to the original point about a false choice between the economy and covid protection. You point out nothing that would indicate that it wasn't a false choice. Can I just assume you agree?

Overriding cause, I don't know. Is it an important factor? I think so.

There being countries with heavy lockdowns and high death rates doesn't disprove that at all.
Click to expand...
If you're going to include measures that can only possibly be theoretical in the UK then yes, you are correct.

But given the options available to the UK, zero COVID was an impossibility, so the argument that restricting freedom would restrict deaths is no longer valid.
 
scaramanga said:
I would rather people died than we just handed over our freedom to the govt.

Of the only options remaining - stay open and the virus spreads or shut everything down and it spreads anyway, I far prefer the former.
Click to expand...

Shutting things down properly doesn't spread it anyway. That's not true. We have the proof in Australia, NZ, Singapore and Vietnam. Shutting down like our govt did was necessary to save lives and was driven by desperation rather than any plan to get the economy fully open long term as they deep down felt herd immunity would work as you did. What is clear is this was wrong.

Letting people die rather than you give up your location which you already do on your phone is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said on here mate. And I feel it is part of some BS contrarian persona you have built on here. I don't buy it.
 
scaramanga said:
If you're going to include measures that can only possibly be theoretical in the UK then yes, you are correct.

But given the options available to the UK, zero COVID was an impossibility, so the argument that restricting freedom would restrict deaths is no longer valid.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to understand what you mean. Was it a false choice or wasn't it?

To restrict deaths by restricting freedom it would have to be possible to achieve zero covid? That doesn't make practical or theoretical sense to me.

Drunk driving laws reduce traffic accidents due to drunk driving, but doesn't eliminate them so the argument that restricting freedom would restrict deaths is no longer valid?

scaramanga said:
The lack of freedom required is far beyond anything I would accept and most people I know would fell similarly - even those most at risk.
Click to expand...

That is a different conversation. If your starting point is that restricting freedom wouldn't restrict deaths I can see why you would reach that conclusion, but I can't understand how you reached that starting point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back