IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Utah 01]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

I have been worried that the cure is more harmful than the disease

....and so have many millions of us since day 1 but only until very recently has this realisation been discussed after months (too late) of suppression by the MSM, especially the UK government's mouthpiece in the guise of the BBC.

This was part of a BBC 'bitesize' revision pack dating from 2011 (refering to the rise of national socialism in Germany) but does this echo of the past ring any bells today?

'A dictatorship completely disregards the rights of individual citizens. The government and state will try to control all citizens through laws, police, spying and force. The government and state is the most important thing to a dictatorship'.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Utah 01
Addendun

[P.K.]

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

From day 1, I have been worried that the cure is more harmful than the disease.  I did not agree with lockdown, but at the time, there seemed no other choice.  Thoughout this, I have tried to listen to those who have the knowledge and understanding of what disease, epidemics and stats all mean.  On here, invariably that is Wrighty.  The Reality Land of which you speak, is where I have always been.

You shouldn't use the term virus "cure" and at the same degrade the results of a lockdown into virus "suppressed" as the terms are mutually exclusive.

Why did you not agree with a lockdown as it was the obvious way to prevent the virus from spreading? After all, at that it was effective was it not?

Also never be afraid to challenge the self-styled SME's. As General Colin Powell once remarked in a speech on leadership "Experts often possess more data than judgement".

So have you always lived in "Reality Land"? As there is as yet no cure it doesn't sound like it....

[Gladys]

Not sure of your point, but I would say far from eradicating, the lockdown could only suppress the disease.  As for terms being mutually exclusive,  again I don't get your point as a "cure being worse than the disease" is often used, particularly where a sledgehammer approach is used which might cure the disease but kill the patient. 

I instinctively didn't agree with the lockdown from the outset because of the likely economic impact, it was something of a sledgehammer.  The effect on health and mental health started to become clear after lockdown started.

Was it effective?  It was effective here because we are small and could limit movement across the borders, but as soon as we opened up, even in a limited way, it was likely the virus would return. 

Was it effective in the UK?  To a degree, but again, it returned when things were opened up. 

However, the original objective was to "flatten the curve" reducing numbers but extending the peak,  so that the health service could prepare itself for the onslaught.  That objective seemed to be the only choice, but what happened in fact was that the popular expectation of lockdown was eradication not suppression and the lockdown was extended far beyond a flattened curve, both here and in the UK with devastating results on the economy livelihoods and non-covid health. 

To a degree, it is irrelevant what happens here as we are so inextricably linked to the UK that we will always feel the effect of what is happening there.

The above is my Reality Land, regardless of what Colin Powell said.

 

[Nom de plume]

6 hours ago, Gladys said:

Not sure of your point, but I would say far from eradicating, the lockdown could only suppress the disease.  As for terms being mutually exclusive,  again I don't get your point as a "cure being worse than the disease" is often used, particularly where a sledgehammer approach is used which might cure the disease but kill the patient. 

I instinctively didn't agree with the lockdown from the outset because of the likely economic impact, it was something of a sledgehammer.  The effect on health and mental health started to become clear after lockdown started.

Was it effective?  It was effective here because we are small and could limit movement across the borders, but as soon as we opened up, even in a limited way, it was likely the virus would return. 

Was it effective in the UK?  To a degree, but again, it returned when things were opened up. 

However, the original objective was to "flatten the curve" reducing numbers but extending the peak,  so that the health service could prepare itself for the onslaught.  That objective seemed to be the only choice, but what happened in fact was that the popular expectation of lockdown was eradication not suppression and the lockdown was extended far beyond a flattened curve, both here and in the UK with devastating results on the economy livelihoods and non-covid health. 

To a degree, it is irrelevant what happens here as we are so inextricably linked to the UK that we will always feel the effect of what is happening there.

The above is my Reality Land, regardless of what Colin Powell said.

 

Great post Gladys.

The truth is, the original reasoning & justification for lockdown has been lost.

Jersey (I do hate to harp on) have found the compromise.

NHS under zero strain & manageable measures in place to suppress the spread of the virus.

Our plan to get out of this still seems to hinge on a vaccine being found.

I ask anyone the question. Would you pump your kids full of something that hadn’t been tested or developed for at least two years? I wouldn’t.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Nom de plume

[thesultanofsheight]

30 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

Our plan to get out of this still seems to hinge on a vaccine being found.

If you got any impression that there was anything wider going on behind the scenes then that’s one thing. But the solution always seems to be to just chuck more people in jail rather than invest in more testing, deploy more people to monitor compliance, and bring in more effective tracking and tracking measures so we can start to open up. We are going to be woefully unprepared for when it comes back and then the only possible reaction will be to lock people down for months on end because we have little other capacity or ways to deal with it. You can’t shut out reality or the real world and it’s daft to even think that you can. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[The Old Git]

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

But the solution always seems to be to just chuck more people in jail rather than invest in more testing, deploy more people to monitor compliance,

And for those who won’t comply? 

[Banker]

45 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

And for those who won’t comply? 

A fine for first offenses like most civilised countries, meanwhile another business goes bust.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-business/car-rental-business-closing-due-to-covid-19-impact/

[Apple]

18 hours ago, P.K. said:

The HoC will be debating whether the Bozo/Cummings etc cabal can carry on making up policy on the hoof or should it be the MP's in the HoC  doing it.

Boris lost the confidence and the trust of a lot of the British public when he let off Cummings and the Minister (forgot his name) for breaking the spirit and the actual law when lockdown first imposed in UK. He lived up to his reputation then and has continued to do so.

According to Private Eye the timing of the announcements and the implementation of restrictions he has made have just happened to coincide with the social needs of his family life. As for using students to develop the herd immunity - they will not forgive him for that.

[The Old Git]

44 minutes ago, Banker said:

A fine for first offenses like most civilised countries

So give them one go at possibly infecting people, maybe causing another lockdown and causing other businesses to go bust?

Do you think the Guernsey chef will pay the £7,000 fines in the other link you posted?

[quilp]

 

 

[P.K.]

10 hours ago, Gladys said:

Not sure of your point, but I would say far from eradicating, the lockdown could only suppress the disease.  As for terms being mutually exclusive,  again I don't get your point as a "cure being worse than the disease" is often used, particularly where a sledgehammer approach is used which might cure the disease but kill the patient. 

I instinctively didn't agree with the lockdown from the outset because of the likely economic impact, it was something of a sledgehammer.  The effect on health and mental health started to become clear after lockdown started.

Was it effective?  It was effective here because we are small and could limit movement across the borders, but as soon as we opened up, even in a limited way, it was likely the virus would return. 

Was it effective in the UK?  To a degree, but again, it returned when things were opened up. 

However, the original objective was to "flatten the curve" reducing numbers but extending the peak,  so that the health service could prepare itself for the onslaught.  That objective seemed to be the only choice, but what happened in fact was that the popular expectation of lockdown was eradication not suppression and the lockdown was extended far beyond a flattened curve, both here and in the UK with devastating results on the economy livelihoods and non-covid health. 

To a degree, it is irrelevant what happens here as we are so inextricably linked to the UK that we will always feel the effect of what is happening there.

The above is my Reality Land, regardless of what Colin Powell said.

As the pandemic is world-wide unless everyone can be vaccinated it will probably NEVER be completely eradicated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. However you can get close. Polio infections are down by some 99%. Not a bad target to aim for.

Lockdown was very successful in slowing the infection rate. I personally can't think of any other way of doing it.

So rather than a lockdown what would you have done?

[Apple]

9 minutes ago, P.K. said:

So rather than a lockdown what would you have done?

I assume this was for Gladys but please allow me to intervene.

The lockdowns, here and in the UK, should have happened earlier, by at least two weeks. This opinion has been aired by others and in the press. We had several weeks to prepare but it took too long to mobilise the resources for the NHS and the care homes to be in a position to respond effectively as the virus became more widespread. The UK did appear to be arrogant in it's preparations to the point of "it can't happen here".

Strategies and funding for both of those areas have over the years been impaired in my view and many people have lost their lives and livelihoods due to this virus. Despite some of the so called experts and the dark room discussions of some politicians there is now so many different views that in reality we have to accept we are not yet in control of it. Until an effective vaccine is produced then it will remain that the virus will be in control and the best we can do is to just respond to it.

 

[Gladys]

I have already said lockdown was probably the only option in the early stages, and I have already said test, track and isolate has to be the way to go. 

Vaccination is not the only way to go: improvements in treatment (there is research that may be indicative of an interferon failure which makes some people more susceptible, Wrighty will correct me on the science, but what this means is without interferon adequately suppressing the immune response the immune system overreacts causing the severe  symptoms), herd immunity (no matter how offensive you find it) and natural mutation of the virus.   The latter may work for or against us, but it is another unknown. 

Total eradication is not without precedent, ask those idiots in the WHO. 

[Banker]

46 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

So give them one go at possibly infecting people, maybe causing another lockdown and causing other businesses to go bust?

Do you think the Guernsey chef will pay the £7,000 fines in the other link you posted?

That’s not the point , no other civilized country is jailing it’s citizens for these type of offenses. Guernsey have 2 recent cases if multiple breaches and still only issued fines.

[Andy Onchan]

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I have already said lockdown was probably the only option in the early stages, and I have already said test, track and isolate has to be the way to go. 

Vaccination is not the only way to go: improvements in treatment (there is research that may be indicative of an interferon failure which makes some people more susceptible, Wrighty will correct me on the science, but what this means is without interferon adequately suppressing the immune response the immune system overreacts causing the severe  symptoms), herd immunity (no matter how offensive you find it) and natural mutation of the virus.   The latter may work for or against us, but it is another unknown. 

Total eradication is not without precedent, ask those idiots in the WHO. 

Isn't herd immunity only any good if you retain the antibodies? Evidence would suggest that antibodies only last for 3 months, after that you have to rely on your T cell count to battle the infection? Reinfections have happened, though I haven't seen any data as to the extent of the severity of the reinfection ie hospitalisation and/or deaths. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Andy Onchan