Freedom day update.

I'm sure if he agreed with these vaccine passports he would have theres no point opposing for opposings sake. But the vaccine passports for nightclubs large sporting events and potentially rolled out to everything does seem a very tory idea.

 

It’s not a case of relying on Maggie to tell us how to behave. We already knew how.
But Maggie actually told us it didn’t matter how we treated others, that we should look out for No1 and other people’s problems weren’t our concern.

And millions of people, most of whom were a bit selfish already took that attitude and ran with it.

 

It's amazing how the survivability of this virus keeps going up and up between you're posts. We don't actually know it's accurate mortality or morbidity rates as we only know how many have tested positive not how many actually have had it and we have no idea what the real death toll is as it's fairly apparent certain countries have not declared the true number, especially those with dense 3rd world populations.

Even here in the UK it's difficult. We've heard a lot about how some people counted as covid deaths died with covid but not from covid. For balance my grandmother recovered from covid then died 3 weeks later from breathing issues caused by it. Her death is not in the covid statistics.

Most importantly, survivability is not the all revealing stat you think it is. For example, the 2014 Ebola outbreak had a death rate over 40% but due to low transmission killed around 11000. Whatever Covid's death rate turns out to be.. it has already killed over 4 million people due to its very high transmission rate.

If your figure of 99.7% is correct that's still 23.4 million potential deaths worldwide. Even dividing that by 10 to go with the 90% vaccine effectiveness rate that health experts are touting.. that's 2.34 million potential global deaths on top of the natural death rate of the world.

Some of us oppose your point of view from a completely rational and thought out perspective. Your accusations that people of differing opinions don't care about anyone but themselves is a horrendous generalisation made from a very selfish, blinkered, political position. Do yourself a favour and take it back. It's really not a good look.

 

I’m literally responding to a post that mentions Thatcher and how those of us who oppose lockdown ‘only care about ourselves’ - we’ve had 16 months of being called selfish, stupid and far, far wose - but you’ve chosen my post calling out others for being a generalisation? Right oh.

I know it’s uncomfortable and upsetting for people to hear about the reality that they’ve supported policies that are causing severe suffering to the poorest in society so that they can feel safer about themselves and their families, but tough. Im not going to sugar coat it for them.

 

There's also the fact that catching Covid has had the greatest impact on those poorest in society and will continue to do so.

Many people wear masks and take fewer risks because their experience with it is horrific. They've lost loved ones or know people who have, and know full well how it can be. People are living through experience, not making stuff up.

 

At no point did I say generalisations from the other side are ok either. But even in the context of this thread and the volatile debate on this subject your post reads particularly badly. There are few 'rights' and 'wrongs' on this subject however vehemently people argue their points. It's more important that we respect each other. Just because you have been disrespected doesn't justify you disrespecting others.

Just because some people are selfish on this subject doesn't necessarily mean it's because of what Thatcher did. Perhaps they're just absolutely terrified of a disease that's killed millions? Perhaps they would benefit more from support than insults?

 

You're absolutely right, they are terrified, because of the perceived threat of the virus is so far in excess of the actual threat to individuals. But, with respect, many of them don't want support. They don't want graphs, or facts illustrating how far the perceived threat is in advance of the actual threat. They want to be scared, and they want someone to blame, and the Government have helpfully provided them with "anti-vaxxers" - which in this instance is a broad collective including young, healthy people for whom personally the risk/reward ratio of taking the vaccine is unclear.

 

With all due respect, you're talking complete rot.

 

It's. not unclear at all. All studies point to the benefits outweighing the risk in all ages, 18 and up. The blood clots from OAZ? Higher in those who get Covid in all age groups than from the vaccine.
Myocarditis from PB? A condition so common and usually undiagnosed that it can't be distinguished from base level. Basically those who are vaccinated monitor their health more closely and so uncover a pre-existing, mostly non fatal condition.

These young people who believe the vaccines aren't safe, believe so because of deceptive and inaccurate media reports. What they need is support and education but

"They don't want graphs, or facts illustrating how far the perceived threat is in advance of the actual threat."

Neither do you apparently as I did present statistics about why covid is dangerous and how your use of an implied survival rate is deceptive and as yet you've offered no acknowledgement or response.

 

Much of this is true; I'm simply taking generally accepted estimates for IFR. You'll note with the higher figure I used I specifically excluded the elderly and obese - interestingly for children the survival rate of the infected is widely estimated to be much better than 99.9%; this study which amalgamates several previous independent studies estimates that for a 10 year old it is 99.998% and for a 25 year old 99.99% - throroughly underlying the outrageous proposterousness of France mandating a vaccine to access schooling- though this steeply drops off to as low as 85% for over 85s, proving beyond a doubt that this is a disease of the elderly (and anecdotally the fat, though that is not accounted for in the figures).

Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications - PubMed (nih.gov)

You go on to correctly state how difficult it is to estimate true death numbers - and correctly determine that the UK number appears to be sigificantly inflated using 'died with' rather than 'died of' - yet you then use them to make wild extrapolations on the worldwide population, in a scene reminiscent of the slides of Prof Straight-Line Whitty.

Finally, and most importantly, none of the figures you offer provide an argument for mandating vaccination in the young, nor for lockdown. Even if we take those potential death numbers as accepted, we have seen no concrete evidence that lockdowns have offered protection against fatalities - see the UK's death numbers - nor do you have any scientific evidence to show that mandating the vaccine for those at tiny risk will lower death rates in the elderly and vulnerable. And that is before you even answer the ethical question of whether it's right to coerce away bodily autonomy through the weird moral and emotional blackmail we are applying to young people.

Critically, what you also fail to even consider in your response - in common with every single other person who supports lockdown, so you're not alone - is any of the myriad deaths and harms generated by lockdown. Just like SAGE, people view COVID as an issue in isolation and try to answer the exam question "how do we get the number of infections and deaths from COVID down" whereas the correct question to be answered is "How do we get the number of infections and deaths from COVID down whilst being mindful of not causing other even worse harms to society and health".

 

I think with a 90% vaccination effectiveness rate, and the risk that creates to 10% of our most vulnerable population, vaccinating the young is quite clearly about protecting society. Considering the evidence is clear that catching Covid presents more health risks to young adults than either vaccine available, it is just common sense for them to get vaccinated rather than inevitably catching it by going to packed nightclubs in the current high infection rates.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-15-risk-rare-blood-clotting-higher-covid-19-vaccines

At no point did I suggest I'm for mandatory vaccinations. Just against clearly intelligent people like yourseld wrongly pushing anti vax propaganda (whether you realise you are or not.)

QUOTE="Tyketical Masterstroke, post: 2777493, member: 54077"]Critically, what you also fail to even consider in your response - in common with every single other person who supports lockdown, so you're not alone - is any of the myriad deaths and harms generated by lockdown. Just like SAGE, people view COVID as an issue in isolation and try to answer the exam question "how do we get the number of infections and deaths from COVID down" whereas the correct question to be answered is "How do we get the number of infections and deaths from COVID down whilst being mindful of not causing other even worse harms to society and health".[/QUOTE]

Had a quick look into the studies available but I can't find an actual figure for deaths and serious mental health issues caused by lockdown. If it exceeds the 4 million confirmed Covid deaths then I apologise. And I mean that genuinely.

There is a definite argument that for both waves if we'd locked down earlier and harder we would have actually spent less time under these oppressive measures but in the end that's just that, an argument. Whether it would have reduced total covid deaths is hard to predict but I would have given more freedom if we could have reduced the waves and opened up quicker.

I don't claim to have all or even any answers relating to the very serious issue you've brought up. But I have also avoided overly politicising my opinion or playing BBS bingo by trying to blame differing opinions on Mrs Thatcher making everyone heartless and ruining the country. You make it sound like the world was a joyous place before she came along. It's not like we were in the midst of a cold nuclear war that spanned multiple political affiliations. Or that during the Great Spanish Flu people weren't avoiding others who needed help through fear for their own health.

Thatcher was just one in a long line of dickish world leaders dating right back through history. It's 2021, she's dead, get over it. If you think society is in an intolerant place then rise above and set a better example. I'd be far more likely to listen to you if you did.

 

Its interesting how much of the Anti-Vax movement can be traced back to a small number of individuals, including one of the Kennedy's and one of the heirs to Johnson & Johnson... Many of them are also QAnon and Trump supporters.

 

You could look at the examples of Guernsey and Jersey for this. Guernsey had a harsh lockdown immediately (2 months iirc) followed by a relaxation with one shorter lockdown after a "superspreader event" at a community dance and altogether 15 residents died of Covid. They are open to travel now and have been mostly free on the island for months.

Jersey was initially more relaxed, and was slower to introduce measures seeing 69 die - and they are still in some level of restrictions now, with nightclubs closed and limits on meeting people.

Both are broadly similar populations and geographic positions, and one appears on the surface to have done better than the other - although whether that was through the introduction of stronger measures earlier or another factor is up for debate.

As a scientist, these might be a good example for the comparison of different measures...

 

It wasn't me who raised her, it was Jimmy Viz.

Incidentally, you talk about alternative approaches that would have seen us better off today:

Today in Sweden - the least locked down country:

One of lowest infection levels in the world
Children relaxing for the summer after a year of virtually uninterrupted schooling
Social cohesion and satisfaction extremely high
No mask mandate
Quality of life practically unimpeded

Today in Australia - the hardest and earliest lockdown country:

50% of the population confined to their own homes
Tiny vaccine uptake as people believe it isn't necessary
WIthdrawn from worldwide sporting events
Massive unrest at the government
Decree from Government that you must not speak to anyone you know if you bump into them on your essential trip to get food shopping.

 

.

 

Mental health and suicide are a far greater threat to young people who aren't obese and don't have underlying health problems. So are cancelled/postponed operations and late diagnosis of illnesses.

Locking down earlier on 2 occasions could have saved some covid fatalities but the lockdowns just put the virus on hold. If it wasn't for the vaccines then we would probley be locked down again at the minute and the NHS over stretched as while cases are high death rates in comparison are low as the elderly and vulnerable have mostly been jabbed.

 

Last I saw, the hospital admission rate due to self harm fell during the lockdown phases in the UK and other countries. This was a while ago, so could have been updated by now, but the general trend was for less self-harm/suicide attempts during the worse periods of the pandemic.

 

The suicide rates stayed similar during lockdown well the 1st one but people seeking mental health help went through the roof. Suicide is the biggest killer in males under 45 and poses a much much greater threat to a fit healthy under 45 who isn't obese and doesn't have underlying health problems than covid does.

 

Did it? That wasn't my previous service's experience referrals dropped off big time... but what would I know eh

 

Young mental health referrals double in England after lockdowns | Mental health | The Guardian

Extent of mental health crisis in England at ‘terrifying’ level | UK news | The Guardian