Coronavirus - Overall
-
Japan's results are interesting
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-22/did-japan-just-beat-the-virus-without-lockdowns-or-mass-testing -
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@antipodean what about all those (like me) who were isolating alone?
I guess we'll know once they start finding the bodies.
During the GFC it increased by about 10K - so again 10 times as bad as the impact of GFC and while he economic impact could be that high I doubt it will add 100K suicides. According to a Reuters report the suicide rate goes up 1% for every point increase in unemployment - so worst case the number of suicides might go up by a third - or 15K. Even if you assume suicides will go up for a few years its still seven years of 30% above the norm before you get to the reported COVID fatalities to date.
Is that data NSW, Japan or NZ?
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
-
@Catogrande You beat me to it. The reason SARS-CoV1 was beaten was patients were symptomatic early and only infectious when symptomatic (or so I have read/heard).
Having said that the risk here is Australasia is becoming very close to nil (Aus still had 6 new cases over night), but it will be so low that identifying and controlling any outbreak should be a lot easier than 3 months ago.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Firstly that's been changed from when it took place.
The same para in in the guidance on 17 March - when it was first published.
But riddle me this, Boris gets it goes off the grid at Chequers and it's announced to the world. Transparent.
Cummings gets it, skulks off. No word. Secretive.
Hardly. It was in the press at the time when people were criticising the government for not taking enough care. Surely Cummings is entitled to the same privacy rights as any one else isn't he?
We have very different views on this.
Hopefully we'll agree to disagree.
I think when kids and medical matters are concerned, politicians and Snr civil servants deserve some space.
That's effectively a get out of gaol card.
Not really. They're still human and dealing with personal issues.
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:
According to a Reuters report the suicide rate goes up 1% for every point increase in unemployment - so worst case the number of suicides might go up by a third - or 15K
Fascinating. This interests me.
Can you post a link?
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
Not for those locked in the nanny state mindset. Where a parent figure must decide for them and everyone else.
Even if it means destroying the economy and many livesI trust the good sense of people. If unhealthy then mostly stay at home or risk becoming very ill. If healthy then go about your business but with a few extra steps as required
Maybe the Govt could do some temperature readings in bigger areas but don't go overboard and destroy the economy. This is madness for what was a fairly mild flu for most. Its the vulnerable that need to take care. That is those who are older (like me) and esp those (young or old) with underlying health issue -
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
Not for those locked in the nanny state mindset. Where a parent figure must decide for them and everyone else.
Even if it means destroying the economy and many livesI trust the good sense of people. If unhealthy then mostly stay at home or risk becoming very ill. If healthy then go about your business but with a few extra steps as required
Maybe the Govt could do some temperature readings in bigger areas but don't go overboard and destroy the economy. This is madness for what was a fairly mild flu for most. Its the vulnerable that need to take care. That is those who are older (like me) and esp those (young or old) with underlying health issueYou really didn't address my point at all. I and many others understand your view about the nanny state. There is really no need to answer every query or contrary view with the same argument. At no point did I disagree with that viewpoint, I merely raised a factual issue which your plan ignored. Your counter is to ignore it again with repetition.
How about addressing the issue of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people spreading the virus and how your plan would cater for this. That is quite a simple point. If you can address this issue then maybe we can discuss the nanny state and the economy v health concerns.
-
@Catogrande you new here mate?
-
@Bones said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande you new here mate?
It's my strict Christian upbringing. If you can save one sinner for heaven, then it's worth trying again.
-
@Catogrande insha'Allah
-
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Bones said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande insha'Allah
Allah Cart
Nom nom.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
Not for those locked in the nanny state mindset. Where a parent figure must decide for them and everyone else.
Even if it means destroying the economy and many livesI trust the good sense of people. If unhealthy then mostly stay at home or risk becoming very ill. If healthy then go about your business but with a few extra steps as required
Maybe the Govt could do some temperature readings in bigger areas but don't go overboard and destroy the economy. This is madness for what was a fairly mild flu for most. Its the vulnerable that need to take care. That is those who are older (like me) and esp those (young or old) with underlying health issueYou really didn't address my point at all. I and many others understand your view about the nanny state. There is really no need to answer every query or contrary view with the same argument. At no point did I disagree with that viewpoint, I merely raised a factual issue which your plan ignored. Your counter is to ignore it again with repetition.
How about addressing the issue of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people spreading the virus and how your plan would cater for this. That is quite a simple point. If you can address this issue then maybe we can discuss the nanny state and the economy v health concerns.
But I have addressed it. The Govt should be an advisor for adults not act like a parent enforcer for children, So start treating the people like adults and I believe most (99%) will respond well. (be an enforcer only for those that don't, For eg the sick who are out and about)
In populated areas say have temperature readings to restrict the few that don't.
Re people who have it but don't know. A minor issue. It's those that are coughing and sneezing that mostly spread it. But I have already said focus on the vulnerable. This group would be strongly advised to be locked down. For example in the UK people I know are having food delivered etc who are in great health but are over 70. They did it themselves. Its not compulsory
And offer advise to everyone re taking extra care. Maybe masks in large areas etc might be advised, Also steps to boost their immune system
Or the Chinese approach. Wuhan was closed down for months but not the rest of China (only weeks) Or some US states. Some main areas were closed down but not the outskirts.
And I'm over 60 now. i don't want young people having their lives destroyed (losing their jobs etc) to protect me. I need to protect myself. I trust my immune system but if I didn't I would self isolate.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
Not for those locked in the nanny state mindset. Where a parent figure must decide for them and everyone else.
Even if it means destroying the economy and many livesI trust the good sense of people. If unhealthy then mostly stay at home or risk becoming very ill. If healthy then go about your business but with a few extra steps as required
Maybe the Govt could do some temperature readings in bigger areas but don't go overboard and destroy the economy. This is madness for what was a fairly mild flu for most. Its the vulnerable that need to take care. That is those who are older (like me) and esp those (young or old) with underlying health issueYou really didn't address my point at all. I and many others understand your view about the nanny state. There is really no need to answer every query or contrary view with the same argument. At no point did I disagree with that viewpoint, I merely raised a factual issue which your plan ignored. Your counter is to ignore it again with repetition.
How about addressing the issue of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people spreading the virus and how your plan would cater for this. That is quite a simple point. If you can address this issue then maybe we can discuss the nanny state and the economy v health concerns.
But I have addressed it.>
No you haven't.>
The Govt should be an advisor for adults not act like a parent enforcer for children, So start treating the people like adults and I believe most (99%) will respond well. (be an enforcer only for those that don't, For eg the sick who are out and about)>
Yes, you have said all this before - repetition. Sad to say, what you believe is not the sound basis for national emergency planning. I expect though that you have some basis for suggesting a 99% success rate?
Thought not>In populated areas say have temperature readings to restrict the few that don't.
Re people who have it but don't know. A minor issue. It's those that are coughing and sneezing that mostly spread it. But I have already said focus on the vulnerable. This group would be strongly advised to be locked down. For example in the UK people I know are having food delivered etc who are in great health but are over 70. They did it themselves. Its not compulsory
And offer advise to everyone re taking extra care. Maybe masks in large areas etc might be advised, Also steps to boost their immune system>
Now you have attempted to address it but only by waiving it away>
Or the Chinese approach. Wuhan was closed down for months but not the rest of China (only weeks) Or some US states. Some main areas were closed down but not the outskirts.>
Comparisons are worthless. You might as well compare NZ or Aus as Wuhan. All are equally irrelevant in looking at the UK>
And I'm over 60 now. i don't want young people having their lives destroyed (losing their jobs etc) to protect me. I need to protect myself. I trust my immune system but if I didn't I would self isolate.>
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
The problem is you see things in black and white, rather than shades of grey. There are too many people selfish and ignorant who are oblivious or uncaring about their impact on others. They're why we can't permit people to make their own decisions.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
The problem is you see things in black and white, rather than shades of grey. There are too many people selfish and ignorant who are oblivious or uncaring about their impact on others. They're why we can't permit people to make their own decisions.
China and the Soviet Union are two great examples of what you want. Or the West today where the wise Govt's have destroyed the economy.