Asian Coronavirus Outbreak

[cantagril]

You are not looking at the facts are you?
Data analysed by experts at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) has revealed that the average age of deaths from the coronavirus is 82.4 years.
Normal life expectancy is 81.1.
You saying this is the killer pandemic and a major threat to most human life on earth?

Of course it isn't ....and you're just doing your absurdum thing again...you naughty boy!

One of the principal concerns of any viral epidemic (except TikTok) is mutation. The larger the number of cases the more likely there will an" improvement" that will be beneficial to the survival of the virus but less so for the viree. We have so far been extraordinarily lucky in that the numbers of UK deaths is in the thousands and not millions and that the current variant seems to merely increase transmississippibility.

Covid 19 is a pussy cat... but if we let it breed its descendants might be tigers.

 

[timsk]

Oh, Blimey, not you too, Atilla.

Do you seriously believe that governments around the world have nuked their economies and put their citizens through all sorts of hardships without good reason? Jeez.

Jon,
As c_v says, this is misdirection. Don't get me wrong - it's a fair point and one well worth discussing, but it in no way answers Atilla's question. So, please address that and, while you're about it, also address the corollery to the age stat's, namely the infection fatality rate (IFR) which is widely acknowledged to be well under 1%. In other words, everyone has well over 99% chance of survival should they catch the virus and the vast majority of those that do catch it and die from it have already exceeded average life expectancy.
Tim.

 

[counter_violent]

Of course it isn't ....and you're just doing your absurdum thing again...you naughty boy!

One of the principal concerns of any viral epidemic (except TikTok) is mutation. The larger the number of cases the more likely there will an" improvement" that will be beneficial to the survival of the virus but less so for the viree. We have so far been extraordinarily lucky in that the numbers of UK deaths is in the thousands and not millions and that the current variant seems to merely increase transmississippibility.

Covid 19 is a pussy cat... but if we let it breed its descendants might be tigers.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

If a virus is allowed to run amok unhindered, then it has no need to mutate.
On the other hand, if it is hindered in any way, then it has to fight harder to survive and so follow the variants, which could be far nastier.

 

[postman]

Oh, Blimey, not you too, Atilla.

Do you seriously believe that governments around the world have nuked their economies and put their citizens through all sorts of hardships without good reason? Jeez.

YES !

 

[postman]

From our favourite MSM reporters the BBC.
"WHO 'very disappointed' after China denies entry"

After 1 year there's nothing left to find. Every piece of evidence linking China to the virus will have been destroyed.
China is a despotic dictatorship what did the WHO expect?

 

[barjon]

Oh dear Jon.
I confess I'm disapponted by your reply. I don't need or expect you to comment on my post or, even, to answer my question as to why David (I, Atilla or whoever) would be an absolute idiot not to "take advantage" of the vaccine. However, what I do expect is that you at least take my points seriously and consider them with an open mind. After all, I spent considerable time and effort writing that post specifically for your benifit. If you'd care to review it you'll note that . . .
A. I did not deny the existance of the pandemic. What I said was there isn't a pandemic that warrants a vaccine without which "the virus poses an existential threat to us all." Okay, for complete clarity and with the benefit of hindsight, I perhaps ought to have added the caveat that there's no need for a blanket roll out of the vaccine to be given to absolutely everyone.
B. I went on to stress that I'm not an anti-vaxer and I accept fully that the vaccine is a wise precaution for some people. I've advised my 95 year old aunt to have it and fully support my older sister who has very advanced MS to have it too. Moreover, in my post I made a point of saying: "I'm not suggesting that anyone will die from the vaccine or even, that some adverse reactions - including death - necessarily mean the vaccine is bad and that people shouldn't have it."

Jon - please read what I write and respoind to that and not just react to what you think I think based on some false belief that I don't accept there's a pandemic and that I'm an anti-vaxer - neither of which is true. Thank you! ;-)
Tim.

Well, what you actually said as opposed to what you report yourself as saying was:
”
“To my mind, three things are implied by your statement . . .
1. That there's a pandemic that warrants a vaccine. Without it, the virus poses an existential threat to us all.”

That number 1 has two separate statements, not running as a single statement as you now claim. I chose to answer in respect of the first statement, albeit that I took it as implying that you didn’t think so.*

btw so far as life expectancy is concerned you will know that because the early deaths don’t feature it actually increases a bit as you’re older. If you make 80 you can expect 88.3 (I’m glad to say)

 

[counter_violent]

Oh, Blimey, not you too, Atilla.

Do you seriously believe that governments around the world have nuked their economies and put their citizens through all sorts of hardships without good reason? Jeez.

Yes, but it's far worse than that. They then entered into a worldwide governmental pissing contest. Having made the wrong decisions initially, they have doubled down ever since.

This total overreaction to a run of the mill cold flu thingy is misdirection so that the thing that they don't want you to look at goes unnoticed or is then blamed on the virus.

It must have something to do with the economic reset. End of the day, everything is always about money.

 

[cantagril]

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

If a virus is allowed to run amok unhindered, then it has no need to mutate.
On the other hand, if it is hindered in any way, then it has to fight harder to survive and so follow the variants, which could be far nastier.

Up to a point, Lord Copper:

There is more than one mechanism that encourages mutation and with your chosen one, I think that it comes down to the definition of "unhindered". ...as in an unprotected population with no vaccine or treatment....which ain't the case with say, our friend flu which is one of the most highly mutating viruses. My personal favourite is "drift" which is less to do with environment and more to do with the way that the virus replicates - either way, it's a fun read.

I don't pretend to understand which of these (or others) was the cause of the Spanish Flu pandemic but it was indeed a strain or "mutation" in present parlance. The world was lucky then with only 20+ million dead and I'd suggest that we don't need to have quite the same degree of luck with the relatively mild CV19 animal nor its more immediate progeny. After say, CV23...fuck knows.

 

[timsk]

. . .That number 1 has two separate statements, not running as a single statement as you now claim. I chose to answer in respect of the first statement, albeit that I took it as implying that you didn’t think so.*. . .

Blimey Jon - that's seriously splitting hairs and completely ignores the basic points of my post and still doesn't answer the question. If I - or anyone else - has to qualify their comments with the caveats and detail you now seem to require then all our posts would become unreadable. Of course I'm not denying there's a worldwide virus that's lethal to some people and it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that I did. Anyone can take a sentence or comment out of context and suggest all manner of things: I thought (mistakenly it now appears) that we were above such petty sillyness. Jeez!
Tim.

 

[cantagril]

Blimey Jon - that's seriously splitting hairs and completely ignores the basic points of my post and still doesn't answer the question. If I - or anyone else - has to qualify their comments with the caveats and detail you now seem to require then all our posts would become unreadable. Of course I'm not denying there's a worldwide virus that's lethal to some people and it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that I did. Anyone can take a sentence or comment out of context and suggest all manner of things: I thought (mistakenly it now appears) that we were above such petty sillyness. Jeez!
Tim.

That's called "debate" and a great example of what an argument is usually not.

If one makes a serious point then one can expect to be taken seriously and if you haven't got all your ducks in a row (which reminds me: what happened to Captain Currency?) then the stragglers will get picked off. Your rebuttal, snide and as disingenuous as you accuse Jon of being, is also part of debate. As for "petty silliness", it seems to me that it's in good company with the rest of our friends here on T2W: entrenched opinions, bias, prejudice and ignorance and so on, ad nauseam.

Seeing as we're all grown-ups, I think that some counsel from Winnie The Pooh is more than appropriate:

“When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.” A.A Milne

😘

 

[barjon]

Blimey Jon - that's seriously splitting hairs and completely ignores the basic points of my post and still doesn't answer the question. If I - or anyone else - has to qualify their comments with the caveats and detail you now seem to require then all our posts would become unreadable. Of course I'm not denying there's a worldwide virus that's lethal to some people and it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that I did. Anyone can take a sentence or comment out of context and suggest all manner of things: I thought (mistakenly it now appears) that we were above such petty sillyness. Jeez!
Tim.

Ok, Tim, fair point. I didn’t look beyond that first point 1 sentence before replying (but it was you who changed it in reporting it).

Let‘s try again.

1. That there's a pandemic that warrants a vaccine. yes, I believe that Without it, the virus poses an existential threat to us all no I don’t wholly believe that
2. That it works. I think the evidence so far indicates that it does
3. That it's safe. nothing is 100 safe, but I am happy to believe the official custodians that there is no indication so far that it is not and that a reasonable level of testing has been done.

As I said to David I don’t believe that people must have the vaccine if they choose not too. Government should not interfere with that choice other thanby providing information and guidance.

That leaves the question of whether it would be right for the Government to legislate and ban antivax rhetoric and/or publicity. On the one hand I’m a believer in free speech but, on the other, I accept that restrictions are necessary sometimes. It’s fair enough that you can’t go about publishing anti-Semitic statements, for example. In the case of vaccination then, it’s reasonable to advance the argument that if getting back normal relies wholly on the vaccination then campaigning against it should be inhibited. I would hate to see legislation to that effect, though, and I think the antivax misinformation should be countered with fact rather than law.

Unfortunately trust in Government and officialdom is so low that people would prefer to believe any old Tom, Dick or Harry rather than the people who have the true facts before them. You were quick enough to point out with Brexit that I should accept what the majority decided, so why now do you expect me to row in with what a small minority of medical scientists have to say about the vaccine?

 

[postman]

Ok, ...
Let‘s try again.
1. ...
3. That it's safe. nothing is 100 safe, but I am happy to believe the official custodians that there is no indication so far that it is not and that a reasonable level of testing has been done.

...

Wait, what?

We saw one of the first volunteers to take it pass out on camera in a spectacular own goal for the vaccinators!
Another has died with no reason given 2 days after taking it.

Healthcare worker dies 48 hours after getting Pfizer coronavirus vaccine

Two days after being administered the Pfizer coronavirus jab, a Portugese health worker suffered a 'sudden death' at home on New Year's day

www.businesstoday.in

I think vaccination deaths should be counted in the same way that covid deaths were calculated ie if you take the vaccine and get run over by a bus you died WITH the vaccine. Lets see how those stats rack up.

 

[barjon]

Wait, what?

We saw one of the first volunteers to take it pass out on camera in a spectacular own goal for the vaccinators!
Another has died with no reason given 2 days after taking it.

Healthcare worker dies 48 hours after getting Pfizer coronavirus vaccine

Two days after being administered the Pfizer coronavirus jab, a Portugese health worker suffered a 'sudden death' at home on New Year's day

www.businesstoday.in

I think vaccination deaths should be counted in the same way that covid deaths were calculated ie if you take the vaccine and get run over by a bus you died WITH the vaccine. Lets see how those stats rack up.

that makes 1,299,998 ok then

 

[postman]

that makes 1,299,998 ok then

A bit like the 7,592,130,000 people who DIDN'T die from covid!

Earth/Population 7,594,000,000 population - 1,870,000 deaths.

Covid Cases overview

Worldwide

Total cases 86.5M

Recovered 48.6M

Deaths 1.87M

 

[postman]

Just a quiet note of calm in this debate.
The flu virus like all other flu viruses before it will die out of its own accord before the vaccine rollout gets meaningfully underway.
As a side note, 40% of French wont take the vaccine and their death stats will be no different to any other country.
Peace and love!

 

[cantagril]

Just a quiet note of calm in this debate.
The flu virus like all other flu viruses before it will die out of its own accord before the vaccine rollout gets meaningfully underway.
As a side note, 40% of French wont take the vaccine and their death stats will be no different to any other country.
Peace and love!

Peace, love...and small font light green to you too...

The stat that people are talking about in Frogland is that 60% don't want the vax and 40% do. As with everything else that they can't agree on/are totally against (or for) the picture will change very rapidly - it's part of their culture and petty revolt even more so.

As for your other point - it may well die out, it may well not.... and how meaningful is meaningful? I understand the definitive threshold of R rate rogering (herd immunity) to be around 70% coverage of the population with an increasingly flatter curve as that level is approached - the principal determinant of that percentage figure being the actual efficacy of the concoction. The manufacturers are claiming an efficacy that would theoretically reduce the coverage required to 60% or below but as an incurable sceptic - for me that's a bitter pill.

 

[timsk]

. . .If one makes a serious point then one can expect to be taken seriously and if you haven't got all your ducks in a row (which reminds me: what happened to Captain Currency?) then the stragglers will get picked off. Your rebuttal, snide and as disingenuous as you accuse Jon of being, is also part of debate. As for "petty silliness", it seems to me that it's in good company with the rest of our friends here on T2W: entrenched opinions, bias, prejudice and ignorance and so on, ad nauseam. . . .

Hi cant',
Only you know who you had in mind when you wrote this - but it most certainly doesn't apply to me. . .

Entrenched opinions
Yes, I have opinions, but entrenched implies I'm unwilling to change them. If I'm presented with new facts and circumstances then change my mind is exactly what I'll do. You want examples? No problem. If you trawl back through the original Brexit thread (not recommended, lol!) you'll see that by default I was a remainer and delighted in taking the michael out of c_v and fellow leavers telling them they didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. By the time polling day arrived, I'd done a complete u-turn and voted for brexit.

Regarding Covid, I backed the first lockdown and clapped the NHS every Thursday evening. (Not virtue signalling, just providing insight as to where I stood on the issue at the time.) I thought Witty and Vallance seemed like good eggs and I praised BoJO for getting scientists on board. I'm sure David (Knight) will testify that I gave him a pretty hard time for suggesting the virus was a hoax. I've arrived at my current position because the facts have changed. That said, I'd be truly delighted - I really would - if you or Jon could convince me I'm wrong, i.e. that lockdowns work and that the vaccines are necessary, efficacious and safe. Being on the 'wrong' side of the mainstream narrative isn't much fun - the grass looks a whole lot greener on your side of the fence and I'd love to join you. So, convince me!

Bias
'Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.'
I accept that I'm inclined towards one side of the argument and oppose the other, but I refute that it's in any way unfair. As above, any bias I have is governed by science, facts and common sense. If those change, I change.

Prejudice
Covered by bias above more or less, I think? If you think I'm prejudiced against anyone -or thing - then be my guest and by all means call me out on it.

Ignorance
Yes, guilty as charged on numerous fronts. However, Covid isn't one of them. I'd estimate I spend between 1 -2 hours every day reading, watching and listening to covid related content and, whilst I don't claim to be an expert, I'm much better informed than the average wo/man on the street. This might make me a sad git who ought to get a life - but I don't think I'm ignorant (about Covid).
Tim.

 

[timsk]

 

[timsk]

 

[timsk]

Yes George - every day!