Author Topic: Panic or prudence?  (Read 1497 times)

Michael Rolls

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 72679
Panic or prudence?
« on: Sep 18, 2020, 09:47:41 AM »
An interesting article in the Telegraph, written by Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University and Director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, and Tom Jefferson, Honorary Research Fellow at the centre.
They are very critical of the ‘Rule of Six’. There is, they say, absolutely no scientific basis for it – it is clearly a purely arbitrary number plucked from the air – it’s nice to find such highly qualified people echoing my own view on the ‘rule’. They claim that government is panicking, relying on modelling which has already proved unreliable and statistics which are exaggerating the numbers.
I’ve just had a look at the reported deaths for the week 11/9/20 – 17/9/20. A total of 81 deaths were reported, of which 66 had tested positive at time of death and 15 had not, but covid-19 was mentioned in the death certificate. Assuming for the moment that those numbers are accurate, and do not contain any exaggerations, that equates to 11.5 deaths per day taking the 81 figure, 9.4 for the 66.
To put those numbers in perspective, in 2019 the average number of suicides – from another Telegraph comment – was 12.1.  It is a truism that we all die of something, and on an average day nearly 1,700 people die of something. Being generous with the numbers that means that at the moment covid-19 deaths represent around 0.68% of deaths – and for that number the country is being destroyed socially and economically.
Nobody in their right mind would try to claim that covid-19 isn’t dangerous – of course it is, and there is no doubt that the deaths will increase over the winter in common with all other respiratory killers, but the ‘cure’ exemplified by the government’s actions seems like doing more damage than the disease itself. One last statistic – the government is looking to take action wherever the rate of positive tests exceeds 50/100,000. For all other acute respiratory infections, the figure is 400/100,000.
I cannot help but think that we are seeing a government which really is panicking, thrashing around in the hope of finding the least damaging – in terms of health care – course of action. But even that hope is ill-founded. Whilst attention has been focused on covid-19, other health problems have effectively been ignored. Cancer care, routine operations, GP consultations, have all suffered, not to mention the mental health problems being stored up. When the figures become available, I wonder how many suicides there will have been in 2020?
Mike
Thank you for the days, the days you gave me.
The older I get, the better I was!

klondike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23258
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #1 on: Sep 18, 2020, 10:27:30 AM »
It's nice to see a bit of rational scepticism. Welcome to the club.


I have been convinced for some time that governments overreacted and are doubling down now with pointless further restrictions to conceal that. When there is no second peak they will claim their swift actions stopped it in its tracks. I would then ask why the even tighter lockdown didn't stop it in its tracks in the first instance. As in the article I linked to earlier it seems clear that this virus has simply run its natural course and none of the actions taken have made much in the way of a difference. Nor will they now.
So long and thanks for all the fish

biglouis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6545
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #2 on: Sep 18, 2020, 11:25:05 AM »
I have been sceptical since the very beginning, I would have been in favour of letting the disease take its natural course now and killing the people it is going to kill, as we do each year with flu.

Lockdowns make very little difference to my life as I rarely go anywhere.Were it otherwise I would have opted out of the restrictions long ago as many younger people appear to have done.
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

xetog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11227
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #3 on: Sep 18, 2020, 07:30:29 PM »
The death rate is now just beginning to rise again and hospital admissions (with Covid - 19), but I don't think we should be surprised as the infection rate is high, due probably to the failure of the young to follow guidelines and passing it on to their elders.  I agree a lot with biglouis and feel it is up to us to protect ourselves.  There are medications now that can make the prognosis better, so even with a resurgence fewer deaths should occur.  There are also a plethora of protection measures at our fingertips, from vitamin D3 to masks, so those of us in the highest endangerment can effectively isolate for as long as they wish.  Home delivery of all our needs has proved a boon, but all assume a good degree of electronic equipment and the nous to use it.  We keep in touch with our kids by either Duo, or Zoom, even our son who is in Poland at the moment keeps us aware of his whereabouts on facebook.  So I would just let the virus do its worst among those who are in no real danger and keep the rest of us locked down until there is a reliable vaccine, or cure.


M.
If you want to control peoples thoughts, first control their words.

Flying bomb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #4 on: Sep 18, 2020, 09:29:13 PM »
They've done it again !!
Announcing lock downs up North but not until a weekend of
boozing, partying  etc is over.

If the Buck stops here how can the Doe go all the way ?



Albert.

Michael Rolls

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 72679
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #5 on: Sep 18, 2020, 10:14:27 PM »
I just don’t understand it. Assuming that they are right, why not announce it as of immediate effect?  Human nature being what is, of course the weekend will see folk making the most of the last opportunity. Madness on the part of both parties
Mike
Thank you for the days, the days you gave me.
The older I get, the better I was!

klondike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23258
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #6 on: Sep 18, 2020, 10:19:29 PM »
Perhaps they want an excuse when it makes no difference?
So long and thanks for all the fish

Michael Rolls

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 72679
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #7 on: Sep 18, 2020, 10:31:00 PM »
You cynic, you! Could be
Mike
Thank you for the days, the days you gave me.
The older I get, the better I was!

biglouis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6545
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #8 on: Sep 18, 2020, 11:08:03 PM »
This is just not going to work!
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

klondike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23258
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #9 on: Sep 19, 2020, 08:53:08 AM »
If there is a genuine full blown second wave then it certainly won't because the full lockdown didn't stop the first although they will claim it did. This won't be a full blown second wave though because the the bulk of the most vulnerable died in the first and there must be a lot of immunity out there now from the mild and asymptomatic cases who caught it in the first wave. This is overblown panic and I can't see it amounting to much more than a blip as people simply ignore everything else because they feel invulnerable wearing those damned useless and frankly dangerous masks which concentrate the virus of the asymptomatic so they can get it all over their hands and dob it around wherever they go. 
So long and thanks for all the fish

biglouis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6545
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #10 on: Sep 19, 2020, 01:24:51 PM »
I feel a bit sorry for older people who have an active social/family life which means a lot to them and who have felt the need to abandon it all because of a media induced panic. When you are getting towards the end of your life then what you have left of it and spending it as you wish becomes more important.


I dont have any grandchildren to hug (and dont regret it). However if I did I would probably say "sod that for a game of soldiers" to social distancing and do it. I am not a rule follower unless the rule suits me and have always been glad that my mind works outside the box.
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

Flying bomb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #11 on: Sep 19, 2020, 05:20:21 PM »
Next on the list is the circuit breaker.
I think a 30 amp MCB should do the job.  ;D
If the Buck stops here how can the Doe go all the way ?



Albert.

Yellowbird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #12 on: Sep 19, 2020, 06:38:32 PM »
I read this article and agree with it. I luckily went out to lunch on Saturday with my family consisting of Sons and their Wives, I don't see them often as they all live away. On Monday I apparently wasn't allowed to see them or anyone else, what might have happened on Sunday, or Tuesday. It's madness. All my little outings music, art book groups abandoned, so that I won't catch a strange virus, any other illness apparently is OK for me to have. I just don't get it.
Born sceptic grown even more sceptic sadly

Ashy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32147
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #13 on: Sep 19, 2020, 07:25:51 PM »
The authorities are still behaving as if catching this disease meant certain death, but it is like catching cold in reality. It is absurd. We can't get on an aeroplane without a certificate to say we have been tested for one virus. But they have never been concerned if we had diphtheria, tetanus, smallpox, influenza or galloping diarrhoea, not even advanced pregnancy.

xetog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11227
Re: Panic or prudence?
« Reply #14 on: Sep 20, 2020, 09:36:49 AM »
How right you are Ashy.  In the DM today is an article by Carl Heneghan of the Centre for Evidence based Medicine at the University of Oxford who's views concur pretty precisely with what I have been thinking for ages.  It is certainly worth reading as it decries the Governments reliance on 'experts' and computer simulations.  There is a lot in the article which I will not attempt to reproduce on here but will mention how I heartily agree with his condemnation of the computer modellers and those who treat their guesses as fact when surely we all know by now that extrapolation is a flawed science.  He wonders why we have become slaves to these people when they have a 20 year record of getting things wrong.  I remember well in the 1960's that science was predicting a slide into a new ice age, by the 1980's they were predicting global warming.  Look at anything based on computer modelling and it will be found to contain major flaws and self interest by the modellers.


We are all in thrall to over cautious scientific advisers who's only interest is in keeping their fat salaries, so always take the gloomy, negative view and the Government is likewise afraid to dissent. We now know that over a third of deaths reported to be from Covid-19 in July and August were in fact from other causes, that our chance of dying from the disease is about 0.01% and that deaths from most other diseases are much higher.


Back in March we knew nothing of the disease and I cannot blame the Government or the scientists from taking it seriously, although it appears that a lockdown for the majority was not the best course of action. But we now have its measure and every one of us knows how to keep our self safe in addition to the fact that whilst there are as yet no cures there are means and resources to reduce mortality in those badly effected and vaccines to prevent infection on the way, so we now need a different course of action.  To my mind, by far the best is to tell all those who are at most risk that if they wish to reduce the danger of infection to self isolate, possibly those with certain susceptibilities and state pensioners and let the remainder carry on as usual.  That will get through the peak as quickly as possible and return the economy to some sort of efficiency as soon as possible.


If those in danger don't wish to take precautions then why make them?  They risk a death earlier than they would otherwise, so let them.  I feel it is down to those of us who have been through life and death issues many times in our lives already to tell the current leaders and those impressionable youngsters currently swallowing the lies being peddled by the new media, that this too will pass.  Humanity will not die out and their lives are generally only made more dangerous by their own actions.


Mike.X
If you want to control peoples thoughts, first control their words.