IOM Covid removing restrictions

[TheTeapot]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Again, Rox, "infections" is not the figure to be thinking about, but the number of symptomatic infections. 

I've seen you make this argument quite a bit now, 'what is a case' etc, are you sure you're right? Isn't one of the main reasons the experts are so concerned about this virus because of the large amount of asymptomatic spread? 

[Barlow]

31 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Fuck all but wash my hands regularly and maybe wear a mask and crack on. There is little point to anything else. Next question. 

Unless you are going outside regularly and touching stuff, washing your hands regularly is a waste of time and water.  And unless done properly so is wearing a mask.

 

10 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I’m not trolling you here, I’m trying to understand what you’d do, now, in the U.K. as an alternative to the steps they’ve taken. 

As much as possible, everyone needs to understand the situation. We have weak leadership both here and UK.We're doing ok in IoM despite of that.

So for example, to bang on about masks: remember they were said to be of no use, then all of a sudden they are just about obligatory everywhere. Masks are only effective if used properly. Where has the instruction been on how to use them properly?

Washing your hands is only effective if done properly, and no point in continued washing once you are in your home. All this bollocks about singing a song at the same time is missing the point. Fair enough once you've come in from shopping or whatever, but once inside your home, that's it. Back to normal.  Where is the instruction and expert advice on this?

The whole thing is a dog's dinner. A rudderless ship. To use the modern parlance - a clusterfuck.

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Barlow

[Scotty]

42 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

That’s exactly what they will do Pingu, bringing disease, misery & death to our shores.

Get your bog roll & spaghetti in kid.

I reckon you should be more worried about your own shores than ours tbh.👍

[thesultanofsheight]

16 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Fairy nuff, although I do wonder how the U.K. would fare without these new measures.

I don’t think we’ll know whether the Swedish model has been the right way or not for a couple of years.  Right now they’re losing a lot of people. I’d like to think there would be a tipping point when death numbers fall. 

What are you talking about? Sweden has a population of about 11 million people. They’ve had 5,900 deaths so far. The UK has had about 43,000.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Sweden has about 1/6 of the population of the UK so actually about the same or less per head of population than the UK has had. And it hasn’t locked down. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[Gladys]

Just now, TheTeapot said:

I've seen you make this argument quite a bit now, 'what is a case' etc, are you sure you're right? Isn't one of the main reasons the experts are so concerned about this virus because of the large amount of asymptomatic spread? 

Well, the issue is that, traditionally, a case was someone who displayed symptoms.  I am not sure if there have been any other diseases for which tests have been carried out for infection on a widespread scale  where symptoms were not presenting.  So, a positive test is logged as a case for presentation to the general public, whereas some of those people may never display symptoms, so are they really cases? 

Of course, the experts are worried about the number of positive tests and I am sure they are tracking how many are symptomatic, how many are asymptomatic, how many need medical intervention and how many are infectious. That is the kind of information needed to establish the virulence and morbidity. 

But, the effect of presenting positive tests as cases and deaths within 28 days of a positive test as automatically a death from covid, is to establish a worrying scenario for many people who will make the correlation between positive test and serious illness/death as almost inevitable.

I have been banging on about this aspect because I think the way the information is presented leads to panic and fear.  What would be better is something like, x% are infected, of those y% are or will develop symptoms and z% will suffer severe illness and z+% will die. 

[Roger Mexico]

3 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

What are you talking about? Sweden has a population of about 11 million people. They’ve had 5,900 deaths so far. The UK has had about 43,000.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

That’s for 1/6 of the population of the UK so actually it’s less per head of population than the UK has had. And it hasn’t locked down. 

Well the same source will show you that Sweden has a death rate of 584 per million (#14) just behind the UK (635 p m at #12) and Italy (600 p m at #13)  so there's not a massive difference.

[thesultanofsheight]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well the same source will show you that Sweden has a death rate of 584 per million (#14) just behind the UK (635 p m at #12) and Italy (600 p m at #13)  so there's not a massive difference.

That was my entire point. AND THEY DIDN'T LOCK DOWN. So really what is the difference and what is being achieved by the UK bankrupting people and throwing millions on the dole following a strategy that makes almost no difference to the actual outcome? 

Edited October 14, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[Scotty]

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well the same source will show you that Sweden has a death rate of 584 per million (#14) just behind the UK (635 p m at #12) and Italy (600 p m at #13)  so there's not a massive difference.

None so blind as those who will not see. 

[thesultanofsheight]

Just now, Scotty said:

None so blind as those who will not see. 

Grown ups are talking. There must be some paper aero planes you could be making to keep you entertained? 

[Gladys]

Also, I find it difficult to get my head round the real magnitude of the figures.  X thousand have died, that's an awful lot of people, but how does that compare with deaths generally or from other causes?  Y people are positive  but of them how many will need hospitalisation/die/pass on the infection. 

Statistics have to be relative and within a context, without those analogues, to the average person they are bound to be interpreted as a cause for concern. 

 

[Scotty]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Grown ups are talking. There must be some paper aero planes you could be making to keep you entertained? 

Do think they may let you join in anytime soon ?

[TheTeapot]

14 minutes ago, Gladys said:

 

I have been banging on about this aspect because I think the way the information is presented leads to panic and fear.  What would be better is something like, x% are infected, of those y% are or will develop symptoms and z% will suffer severe illness and z+% will die. 

I think we can all agree on that!

[pongo]

13 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I was only repeating what the Swedish minister for health said on Radio 4 on Sunday afternoon.

 

On 9/25/2020 at 9:23 AM, Roxanne said:

I look after me, my family, my friends and anyone else that needs looking after and who I have the energy for. By keeping myself away from it all I’m giving myself and others the best chance of being able to help others. I’ve not read a paper for years or watched tv and I’ve got rid of all the radios now too so no news for me. 

Were you joking?

Edited October 14, 2020 by pongo

[TheTeapot]

14 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

. AND THEY DIDN'T LOCK DOWN. 

They also didn't exactly do nothing. They had a number of restrictions, and they paid well for sick people to stay at home.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

16 minutes ago, Scotty said:

None so blind as those who will not see. 

I'll have to pull you here.

Roger has just posted statistics that show that Sweden, a country which hasn't locked down (and caused all the enormous damage the UK lockdown has), registers less deaths per million than the UK.

Who's blind?