Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

Huntergreed

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
791
Location
Dumfries
And let's not forget that the first Smallpox vaccine was in fact the first vaccine ever, devised by Edward Jenner in 1796. The last confirmed case was in 1977, and it was certified as eliminated in 1980.

So not far short of 200 years. Doesn't bode well for eliminating this virus quickly, even if a vaccine is developed...
So according to Sturgeon's remarks today, we may not be able to fully lift restrictions until around 2200.

I wish her luck with that one.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MikeWM

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
778
Location
Ely
Compare Boris Johnson earlier today

What’s my plan, what’s my vision, for how we’re going to cope with Covid? I don’t want a world in the next year where we’re endlessly forced to stay metres apart from each other. That’s not going to work in the long term for the UK economy, for a great, dynamic service economy such as the one that we have. It won’t even work for a manufacturing economy such as the one that we have.
So we’ve got to get that disease down and return to normal life as fast as we possibly can.
which seems a better attitude, though he's not exactly matched words and actions recently.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,311
Well Boris doesn't really want to lose 250k-750k voters, almost all of whoom are committed conservatives.........
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,704
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
So according to Sturgeon's remarks today, we may not be able to fully lift restrictions until around 2200.

I wish her luck with that one.
I don't. Once the pubs start to open south of the wall, there will be some Scots getting a little more impatient with her Nanny Policies.... ;)

Seriously though, there's been some good points made recently. The reliance by some on the magic vaccine coming along to save us ignores the realty of making successful vaccines in eliminating viruses, i.e. they almost never do. At best any successfully virus will act as a temporary, and partial barrier to the viruses spread but at the same time could start to trigger it to mutate at a greater rate.

And the same goes for widespread and long term use of hand sanitiser, it will only encourage more mutation through micro-organisms. In fact my concerns about the over-use of anti-bacterial and anti-viral products (not necessarily medical treatments BTW) in our general society mean that we actively avoid them in our day to day life wherever possible. Not only are we waging war on the micro-world both on our skin & in our homes but out in the general environment. It will all contribute to genetic mutations as amounts of these products being used grows, and could come back to bite us on our ***. I will use them where required for the short term, but long term we are going to have to be a bit more trusting of our fellow humans again.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
1,592
A very doom-laden briefing from Sturgeon up in Scotland today. Constant reminders that “progress is very fragile” and that in autumn we may look back to just now and see that “this is as good as it’s going to get”. One particularly concerning thing I heard her say was that “life cannot and should not return to normal as we move into the autumn” and that she “will likely make some decisions that will not be popular with everyone”, but that her priority will be to get the levels of the virus “at or as close to elimination as possible” and that until this is achieved, “life simply cannot return to normal”.

She even made a plea to everyone that “even though we are opening more businesses, you should not be going out as much as you would before and you should only visit these places when it is safe and sensible to do so”, which in my opinion is economy-destroying advice.
Nanny Sturgeon seems to forget that, like any politician, she is answerable to the public and can be voted out. Unfortunately the next Scottish Parliament election is not till May 2021 but if she carries on with her mishandling of the virus and the effects on the Scottish economy she could find herself out of work before she finally lifts the Scottish restrictions!
 

adc82140

Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
511
I have never been to Scotland in my life. To remedy that I'm booked to go to Inverness in 3 weeks. Sod's law.
 

Scotrail12

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2014
Messages
96
Nanny Sturgeon seems to forget that, like any politician, she is answerable to the public and can be voted out. Unfortunately the next Scottish Parliament election is not till May 2021 but if she carries on with her mishandling of the virus and the effects on the Scottish economy she could find herself out of work before she finally lifts the Scottish restrictions!
I sure as hell will be voting her out. Hopefully enough people will see through her this time around.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
We literally have SAGE minutes stating that the public must be made afraid so that they would obey.
Its there in black and white.

Its why they keep trumpeting it when young people without underlying conditions die of the disease.
Even though that is a tiny handful of people.
Can you link to that claim please.

In looked through them and found nothing like that. Nor is the tone or topics of discussion even close to “public must be made afraid so that they will obey”.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
Sainsburys put 2 metre high screens around each individual self checkout but then still only have every other one open
They may not have staff for more anyway. Plus if they alternate which are in use that is probably see as another “layer”
 

MikeWM

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
778
Location
Ely
Can you link to that claim please.

In looked through them and found nothing like that. Nor is the tone or topics of discussion even close to “public must be made afraid so that they will obey”.
See my post #587 above.

It certainly is deliberate. Here's a direct quote from the released SAGE papers

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf
Perceived threat: A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened. The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
See my post #587 above.
The paper was presented to SAGE on 23rd March, written by behavourists answering the question of “how do we raise compliance”.

SAGE minutes simply refer to it being passed onwards.

Was that specific option decided on? When? By who? Where is that shown?

I make this point because I write papers like this for meetings like this. I am thus keenly aware there is no obvious cause and effect in terms of papers and decisions.

It merely talks of targeting complacent people. That is not “make the public afraid”.

Regardless, this seems identical (even if it were taken up) to say anti smoking messaging and discussion - not some conspiracy to distort the situation.
 

DavidB

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
256
The paper was presented to SAGE on 23rd March, written by behavourists answering the question of “how do we raise compliance”.

SAGE minutes simply refer to it being passed onwards.

Was that specific option decided on? When? By who? Where is that shown?

I make this point because I write papers like this for meetings like this. I am thus keenly aware there is no obvious cause and effect in terms of papers and decisions.

It merely talks of targeting complacent people. That is not “make the public afraid”.

Regardless, this seems identical (even if it were taken up) to say anti smoking messaging and discussion - not some conspiracy to distort the situation.
The underlying message clearly is that people need to be made afraid, and whether or not it was officially adopted the tactics adopted by the government in around that time certainly fit this.
 

MikeWM

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
778
Location
Ely
The paper was presented to SAGE on 23rd March, written by behavourists answering the question of “how do we raise compliance”.

SAGE minutes simply refer to it being passed onwards.

Was that specific option decided on? When? By who? Where is that shown?

I make this point because I write papers like this for meetings like this. I am thus keenly aware there is no obvious cause and effect in terms of papers and decisions.
It was clearly suggested. We'll have to draw our own conclusions on whether it was acted on based on what we ourselves observed (eg. the advert the Government put out repeatedly on TV a couple of weeks later, with images of intensive care and a voiceover saying 'anyone can get it'), unless the Government kindly agrees to release all of their papers before 30 years (or whatever it is) are up.

Note these SAGE (and SAGE sub-group) papers would probably have not been released either if not for Simon Dolan's legal action.

It merely talks of targeting complacent people. That is not “make the public afraid”.
Feeling 'sufficiently personally threatened' sounds like a longer way of saying 'afraid' to me.

Regardless, this seems identical (even if it were taken up) to say anti smoking messaging and discussion - not some conspiracy to distort the situation.
I think by now we've all drawn our own conclusions as to whether the situation has been distorted (and if so, by how much) for this particular virus. For those of us who believe it has been exaggerated so far out of proportion that I'm not sure I can think of any modern equivalent - that doesn't itself answer whether that is due to utter incompetence, conspiracy, or some mix of both.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
The underlying message clearly is that people need to be made afraid, and whether or not it was officially adopted the tactics adopted by the government in around that time certainly fit this.
That isn’t the underlying message at all.

It’s an option in a large document.

Whether or not it was taken up is rather key since that is the question! Especially as there is huge scope for change between a sentence in a paper and output!


Again my original point was why count in Covid deaths ones which may not be due to covid. The answer that it was to scare people and keep them in line clearly has not been evidenced.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
Feeling 'sufficiently personally threatened' sounds like a longer way of saying 'afraid' to me.
Again though, specifically for complacent peope. Absolutely nothing about the public at large and the same minutes talk about good levels of compliance.

Does this appear in any of the many ones since?
 

DavidB

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
256
Again my original point was why count in Covid deaths ones which may not be due to covid. The answer that it was to scare people and keep them in line clearly has not been evidenced.
I'm sure I've seen mention of guidance to doctors that they could certify deaths as from this cause it it appeared that they were, without the usual checks being necessary. This would seem to fit into this category.
 

DavidB

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
256
Again though, specifically for complacent peope. Absolutely nothing about the public at large and the same minutes talk about good levels of compliance.
Surely 'complacent people' means anyone who isn't acting like they feel as threatened as the government wants to be?
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
That
I'm sure I've seen mention of guidance to doctors that they could certify deaths as from this cause it it appeared that they were, without the usual checks being necessary. This would seem to fit into this category.
That does not in any way evidence intent - the only evidence I’ve seen for it is an understandable drive to reduce barriers to dealing with potential overload of the medical system.

With the Govt now coming under more and more pressure rgearding the numbers, you’d think theyd be desperate to reduce them.
 

DavidB

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
256
that doesn't itself answer whether that is due to utter incompetence, conspiracy, or some mix of both.
In the case of our government, probably a mix of both!

They are now faced with the problem of how to reduce the paranoia which has been caused by their messaging, and they don't seem to have much idea how to do this beyond tokenism such as masks (weak evidence of any proven benefit), and the 2m where possible messaging (the original version of '2m for 15 minutes or more' seems to now have been forgotten).
 

DavidB

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
256
That does not in any way evidence intent - the only evidence I’ve seen for it is an understandable drive to reduce barriers to dealing with potential overload of the medical system.
But of course it will inflate the numbers, as any deaths which look like pneumonia may be attributed to it, even if they have some other cause.
 

MikeWM

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
778
Location
Ely
Again though, specifically for complacent peope. Absolutely nothing about the public at large and the same minutes talk about good levels of compliance.
It says 'a substantial number of people do not feel sufficiently personally threatened', and then says how it wants to make those people feel 'sufficiently personally threatened'. The other people presumably *already* feel 'sufficiently personally threatened'. In other words, everyone needs to be afraid, and the Government needs to make sure that happens.

Does this appear in any of the many ones since?
No idea, sorry. I've not trawled through them, the above quote was pointed out to me elsewhere.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
1,583
Completely agree - a bit of realism from both sides of society is needed here. Some people won

Same! For the last 5 months I've had suspected COVID then.

I walked past my local pub earlier to hear the pub landlord saying to a passerby that they would be having an extra member of staff on the doors to check temperatures as people enter. To me, we've got to get testing sorted and speed of it increased - we can't be hibernating for 14 days (potentially multiple times) each time we have a temperature (or a sore throat if the UK's list of symptoms expands to match the CDC's!). The world will never get moving again if that has to keep happening.
People won't hibernate for 14 days every time they have a suspected case. They just won't. You are right that testing needs sorting. People will get a test if they have suspected symptoms (out if self interest if nothing else).
Let's face it, a significant proportion of people wouldn't hibernate even if they had a positive test result, but felt ok. Expecting people to "self-isolate"on nothing more than they think they might have COVID is naïve.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
But of course it will inflate the numbers, as any deaths which look like pneumonia may be attributed to it, even if they have some other cause.
Well exactly, but why?

It’s been posited it is to “scare” people, but given the “you killed 65k of your people” attack at Boris that is growing, youd think they would be trying do deflate the numbers!

It also throws off genuine understanding.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
312
It says 'a substantial number of people do not feel sufficiently personally threatened', and then says how it wants to make those people feel 'sufficiently personally threatened'. The other people presumably *already* feel 'sufficiently personally threatened'. In other words, everyone needs to be afraid, and the Government needs to make sure that happens.



No idea, sorry. I've not trawled through them, the above quote was pointed out to me elsewhere.
I’m sorry but those aren’t logical statements. It doesn’t for instance deal with a level of what threatened / afraid is.

It also comes back to this was a very small part of a single options paper presented to an advisory board 3 months ago where the task would have been “think of all the options, including unpalatable”.

I’m sorry but if this is it, it isn’t convincing. As I said, if anything it seems akin to anti smoking messaging, not some holistic conspiracy to terrify the hell out of people, specifically including making the death count look worse by all means.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
53,075
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
Several more examples of madness in the news recently - Nicola Sturgeon has apparently claimed that she wouldn't rule out a 14-day quarantine period for people coming into Scotland from other parts of the UK. So how does she think that would work? It's a completely open border with no controls! Would people in Gretna Green have to go into two weeks' quarantine if they'd been shopping in Carlisle?
If she's going for elimination she's going to have to. Unfortunately public health is a devolved matter so she can do things like that.
 

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
4,730
And once the Government decides to accept the casualties it would be over in a handful of months..........
It’s been posited it is to “scare” people, but given the “you killed 65k of your people” attack at Boris that is growing, youd think they would be trying do deflate the numbers!
The second comment indicates that the government simply doesn't have the option to 'accept the casualties'.

I note that there were no excess deaths relative to the 5 year average in England and Wales in the week ending 19 June. However, the Covid deaths are still considered to be more 'unacceptable' than the other deaths.

I assume that the lower level of 'normal deaths' in the week ending 19 June is the effect of some 'displacement' of deaths from the period of the Covid spike.

This is quite an interesting map from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53233066

1593538891260.png
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
1,784
Can you link to that claim please.

In looked through them and found nothing like that. Nor is the tone or topics of discussion even close to “public must be made afraid so that they will obey”.
Yes, it does exist as I read it too. It is in one of the supporting papers in how best to get people to comply with lockdown restrictions. Behavioural science type thinking. One of the alternatives is severly heavy punishment for failing to comply. Hence the doubling of the fine for each occasion £60, £120, £240 etc. Then the uplift to a starting fine of £100 because, presumably, too many people thought 'it's only £60, sod it I'm going out'.

Basically, (some) people will only comply when they see that the disease is an imminent threat to them - large numbers of cases, large numbers of deaths, real chance of catching it themselves (or their near and dear granny catching it).
 

Top