has covid 19 been blown out of all proportion?

lalababa

Yes...but I don't care.

drunkmonkey

Plenty of empty hotels on the payroll as well.

BloodBath

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The death rates per 100,000 seem to vary. Perhaps it's the mutations (there appears to be 20) but even a modest estimate of a 1.7% morality rate on a population of 4,900,000 (round numbers) would equate to 85,000 dead.

I think the measures are appropriate. Our health system would have been quickly overwhelmed. We had the lowest ICU beds per population in Europe and essentially no primary health care system. It would have been carnage if left run unrestricted.

No evidence for 20 significant mutations, the death rate is nowhere near as high as 1.7% and you are assuming 100% infection rate for that number.

The measures were still appropriate but what you're stating is nonsense as well.

Risteard81

lozenges wrote: »

A few facts:

1. The virus is spread by human-human contact
2. Human-human contact has been significantly restricted in the past 6 weeks
3. Number of deaths is many times lower than the original worst case estimate (i.e. if no restrictions were implemented)

It boggles the mind that some people appear to genuinely believe that these are in no way contingent on each other.

You have ignored the fact that it was an entirely bogus estimate used to justify totalitarianism by the unelected junta.

GreeBo

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I have a very large rock in my garden that I call my 'anti bear' rock. I have never been attacked by a bear in my garden so clearly it works.

We know COVID-19 passes from human to human, whats your link from bears to rocks?

storker

Risteard81 wrote: »

You have ignored the fact that it was an entirely bogus estimate used to justify totalitarianism by the unelected junta.

Priceless. Do you ever do Vicar St?

GreeBo

facehugger99 wrote: »

We have pissed away millions on a facility that's sitting empty.

I presume you dont believe in any form of insurance either?

Plumbthedepths

GreeBo wrote: »

We know COVID-19 passes from human to human, whats your link from bears to rocks?

My claim to being protected from bears by my anti bear rock is as valid as the claims that 10's of thousands of deaths have been prevented by the lockdown.

is_that_so

BloodBath wrote: »

No evidence for 20 significant mutations, the death rate is nowhere near as high as 1.7% and you are assuming 100% infection rate for that number.

The measures were still appropriate but what you're stating is nonsense as well.

Yeah they are. A lot of the arguments around the actual fatality rates are used to argue that measures are disproportionate. Percentages are far cleaner that bald death numbers, it seems.

GreeBo

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

My claim to being protected from bears by my anti bear rock is as valid as the claims that 10's of thousands of deaths have been prevented by the lockdown.

Other than there being a scientific link between spread of the virus and human to human contact vs a Bear and a Rock.

BloodBath

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah they are. A lot of the arguments around the actual fatality rates are used to argue that measures are disproportionate. Percentages are far cleaner that bald death numbers, it seems.

Everything you stated was wrong but w/e floats your boat.

Let's start with the 20 different strains claim. Where did you pull that from?

-edit- Looked up some articles using 20-30 and even 40 strains claim. A virus is gonna mutate every time it replicates. A minor mutation will not affect the behaviour of the virus at all. A significant number of mutations might change how the virus behaves and how deadly it is. Just stupid clickbait articles as usual.

CinemaGuy45

Jizique wrote: »

I agree completely - but does anyone know what is going on at the CitiWest exhibition center that was hyped up on the news 2 weeks ago?

They had Disney On Ice for the last few years much the same this year a Mickey Mouse operation.:D

is_that_so

BloodBath wrote: »

Everything you stated was wrong but w/e floats your boat.

Let's start with the 20 different strains claim. Where did you pull that from?

20 strains? I think you planned to reply to another poster.

LeBash

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I am openly asking questions we are allowed to do that still.

Children do not seem to really get hit by this thing but the schools are closed to stop the spread and protect the elderly?

The elderly in the care homes are being hit hard by this thing the very group this was suppose to protect.

The large majority or elderly dont live in care homes. There are plenty of people with underlying health conditions (and plenty dont even know they have them) who are young, youngish, contribute to tax bill, society etc.

The financial cost and the hardship with staying in most people seem to be following is tough but the reality is it's for the greater good.

A lot of the "look at Sweden" and we should be back open is selfish talk.

800 people are dead because of this. It could have been much worse.

We are doing the right thing morally and while it may be hard on some peoples pocket, at least there is some money and government has made arrangements with banks.

For those losing the head at home, suck it up for a little bit longer, hopefully you have a back garden you can enjoy the bit of nice weather in also.

sink

facehugger99 wrote: »

You confusing correlation with causation - it's quite common.

There is no evidence to suggest the restrictions have reduced death numbers as you suggest. However, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest the original estimates were ridiculously over-estimated.

I'm not arguing that you are wrong but can you clear up a few things for me?

What is the evidence that the restrictions were unnecessary? I don't know of any specific evidence, I'm not saying you don't have any. There are variations in death rates globally but we don't know why that is yet, beyond speculation. The data itself is questionable due to not being normalized because different jurisdictions are recording it (or not) using different methodology.

You claim that there is a lack of evidence that restrictions are working. What do you consider to constitute evidence? Evidence normally requires a scientific prediction and then real world data has to be gathered that supports or refutes that prediction. So what prediction have you made regarding the success or otherwise of the restrictions that is or is not being supported by the data?

CinemaGuy45

LeBash wrote: »

The large majority or elderly dont live in care homes. There are plenty of people with underlying health conditions (and plenty dont even know they have them) who are young, youngish, contribute to tax bill, society etc.

The financial cost and the hardship with staying in most people seem to be following is tough but the reality is it's for the greater good.

A lot of the "look at Sweden" and we should be back open is selfish talk.

800 people are dead because of this. It could have been much worse.

We are doing the right thing morally and while it may be hard on some peoples pocket, at least there is some money and government has made arrangements with banks.

For those losing the head at home, suck it up for a little bit longer, hopefully you have a back garden you can enjoy the bit of nice weather in also.

I am working away getting my wages noting selfish from me I like my alone time anyway.

I was one of the people screaming for a lockdown at the start of all of this I fully believed the 85,000 likely deaths I have since changed my opinion.

The economy feeds us all it pays for everything including health.

Somebody posted in this thread would I like to tells the families of those that died that the lockdown may have been out of blow out of all proportion?

Pure emotion every death is tragic and we have had the restrictions and these people still died.

I think that is a very nasty form of argument.

JPCN1

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Plenty of empty hotels on the payroll as well.

Don't for get nearly half a billion, (445 million) for the private hospitals which were at 15% capacity last I saw.

A hundred million here, a hundred million there and soon we're talking real money...

CinemaGuy45

JPCN1 wrote: »

Don't for get nearly half a billion, (445 million) for the private hospitals which were at 15% capacity last I saw.

A hundred million here, a hundred million there and soon we're talking real money...

The government will have to stop all this loose talk of the internet for our own safety.

facehugger99

sink wrote: »

I'm not arguing that you are wrong but can you clear up a few things for me?

What is the evidence that the restrictions were unnecessary?

It's not possible to prove a negative.

You might as well argue that the restrictions have prevented an alien invasion because we haven't had one since they were introduced.

sink wrote: »

You claim that there is a lack of evidence that restrictions are working. What do you consider to constitute evidence?

There are plenty of examples of other countries, which have implemented less stringent restrictions, and have seen damn all difference in their infection rates.

There is no evidence that the restrictions will have any long term impact on the spread of the virus.

There may never be a vaccine for this. There almost certainly won't be one in the next 18 months. We need to get the country back to some form of normality or we face a economic crisis that will make the 1930's depression look like the Teddy Bear's picnic.

is_that_so

JPCN1 wrote: »

Don't for get nearly half a billion, (445 million) for the private hospitals which were at 15% capacity last I saw.

A hundred million here, a hundred million there and soon we're talking real money...

There is a quote about being in a public health emergency that it's better to be blamed for overreacting than for not doing enough.

Boggles

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I was one of the people screaming for a lockdown at the start of all of this I fully believed the 85,000 likely deaths I have since changed my opinion.

What model are you citing to inform your opinion?

What data can you share, what mitigation do you think we should have done and have you seen any projected base numbers for infections, hospitalizations and deaths for that proposed mitigation?

Gamer Bhoy 89

If you think it's blown over proportion, why don't you call its bluff and continue your daily routine without the precautions and see what happens? Don't wear gloves, don't wash your hands as often (still wash them though, Jesus), just do the things you would've been habitually doing before this crisis started, and just see how everything turns out.

The reason our numbers aren't as large as, say, Britain's, is because we started making precautions as quick as we could. Leo laid down the law as quick as he could. The country has been doing fairly well as a whole (with the exception of a few idiots) and this is almost precisely the reason our death count isn't as high as it could be.

If you are okay with riding it out and letting it run it's course, then go about your daily routine.

But don't come near the rest of us when you do it.

It's ironic you say you're not being selfish, as you are clearly only seeing this from your own (and seemingly safe) perspective.

I don't normally argue with people on Boards - I'm generally very pleasant to talk to, but your OP really frustrated me.

The 100k-death count could've easily happened if we didn't cop on and stick to the rules, ergo Britain, which is pissing me off even more, as I'm originally from that country and I have a lot of family over there who are absolutely terrified, and that pillock of a PM, doesn't give two ****s about the general public, made even worse by the fact his peers and employees always screw Scotland over.

So don't sit there on your high horse thinking this is an overreaction, just be grateful you don't have it. And I pray you don't have to attend a funeral. Because I can't imagine what you'll be thinking in your head if you do. Will you still be thinking it's an overreaction then?

I wish I never saw this thread.

Tell me how

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I am working away getting my wages noting selfish from me I like my alone time anyway.

I was one of the people screaming for a lockdown at the start of all of this I fully believed the 85,000 likely deaths I have since changed my opinion.

The economy feeds us all it pays for everything including health.

Somebody posted in this thread would I like to tells the families of those that died that the lockdown may have been out of blow out of all proportion?

Pure emotion every death is tragic and we have had the restrictions and these people still died.

I think that is a very nasty form of argument.

Why, every one dies, we know this. But it is human nature to wonder why and depending on circumstances and individuals involved, some deaths are harder to accept than others.

If you are someone who heard the warnings, followed instruction ,observed others being flippant about it or that it was being blown out of proportion, and then you lost a loved one, I think it is very understanding that you would feel aggrieved at those who were saying there was nothing to worry about.

As the lockdown is removed, there are going to be people who get the virus and die from it. Their loved ones will likely wonder what if the lockdown had continued for longer, or people had been more careful.

MICKEYG

cian68 wrote: »

That is precisely BECAUSE of the precautions taken

This 1,000 times. Reminds me of people giving out about "all the time and money spent on Y2K planning when there were no issues".

There is also the Homer Simpson line when he is trying to save money "Why do we spend all that cash on vaccines for Maggie for diseases she never gets"

CinemaGuy45

Gamer Bhoy 89 wrote: »

If you think it's blown over proportion, why don't you call its bluff and continue your daily routine without the precautions and see what happens? Don't wear gloves, don't wash your hands as often (still wash them though, Jesus), just do the things you would've been habitually doing before this crisis started, and just see how everything turns out.

The reason our numbers aren't as large as, say, Britain's, is because we started making precautions as quick as we could. Leo laid down the law as quick as he could. The country has been doing fairly well as a whole (with the exception of a few idiots) and this is almost precisely the reason our death count isn't as high as it could be.

If you are okay with riding it out and letting it run it's course, then go about your daily routine.

But don't come near the rest of us when you do it.

It's ironic you say you're not being selfish, as you are clearly only seeing this from your own (and seemingly safe) perspective.

I don't normally argue with people on Boards - I'm generally very pleasant to talk to, but your OP really frustrated me.

The 100k-death count could've easily happened if we didn't cop on and stick to the rules, ergo Britain, which is pissing me off even more, as I'm originally from that country and I have a lot of family over there who are absolutely terrified because that pillock of a PM doesn't give two ****s about the general public, made even worse by the fact his peers and employees always screw Scotland over.

So don't sit there on your high horse thinking this is an overreaction, just be grateful you don't have it. And I pray you don't have to attend a funeral. Because I can't imagine what you'll be thinking in your head if you do. Will you still be thinking it's an overreaction then?

I wish I never saw this thread.

Well you sure never read it.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

First off I have followed all the restrictions and I am also and essential worker.

Nearly 1'000 people dead that is very sad and the situation in elderly and care homes is very bad not saying otherwise the very people who needed to be protected don't seem to have benefited from this lockdown.

I am still working away so I have my wages so this crisis has not cost me anything so I have not started this thread for selfish reasons I also have elderly folks so I do worry about them.


However under 1'000 dead we got warnings of upwards of 100'000 dead I think it is pretty safe to say that number now looks way over the top.


This lockdown has wreaked the economy and did we need to close schools?

At the start of all this I was going for people who said this only hits the old as every life counts.

Knowing what we know not MY OPINION is we should have totally locked down the care homes staff should have been isolated with the residents.

As for the rest of us the virus should have just been let run it's course.

The one group we said this was for have been totally let down.

This is a discussion forum I have offered my opinion and asked others to share their please do not attack me if you do not agree.:)

Edit remember this?

Gamer Bhoy 89

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Well you sure never read it.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

First off I have followed all the restrictions

I never said you didn't follow the restrictions. But you contradict yourself when you say you do follow the restrictions but still say this thing is blown out of proportion.

The numbers are the way they are specifically BECAUSE YOU, AND EVERYONE ELSE, HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE RESTRICTIONS.

CinemaGuy45

Gamer Bhoy 89 wrote: »

I never said you didn't follow the restrictions. But you contradict yourself when you say you do follow the restrictions but still say this thing is blown out of proportion.

The numbers are the way they are specifically BECAUSE YOU, AND EVERYONE ELSE, HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE RESTRICTIONS.

I think this thing has been blown out of proportion however I am not stupid.
Having a discussion and taking risks are two different things.

This is the kind of thing we can never know for sure.

Not going to play Russian Roulette just because I think a gun is not loaded.

Beasty

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I was one of the people screaming for a lockdown at the start of all of this I fully believed the 85,000 likely deaths I have since changed my opinion.

The economy feeds us all it pays for everything including health.

What would be an "acceptable" number of deaths to you? Where should we have drawn the line?

pjohnson

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I think this thing has been blow out of proportion however I am not stupid.

You think its been blown out proportion because restrictions have stopped the worst case scenario.

What exactly did you expect restrictions to do?

CinemaGuy45

Beasty wrote: »

What would be an "acceptable" number of deaths to you? Where should we have drawn the line?

Hard to say that is why these things should be discussed.

How many people might a broke country with a failed economy kill?

I wonder what the consensus will be in five years time?