Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Now That The Threat From Corona Virus Seems To Be Dwindling A New Virus...
55 Answers
... looms.
Should we be worried by Monkey Pox? How contagious is it and how dangerous?
Should we be worried by Monkey Pox? How contagious is it and how dangerous?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So, one gets monkey pox from lying with monkeys ?
As for Covid, my opinion was that apart from controls to ensure hospitals weren't overwhelmed, and protecting the vulnerable, that one should "let it rip" and society build up natural (herd) immunity. Also that the mask nonsense would be no practical help. I am still of those opinions which I think has been sufficiently verified.
As for Covid, my opinion was that apart from controls to ensure hospitals weren't overwhelmed, and protecting the vulnerable, that one should "let it rip" and society build up natural (herd) immunity. Also that the mask nonsense would be no practical help. I am still of those opinions which I think has been sufficiently verified.
//why is the uk death rate per confirmed cases so high confirmed to the rest of the world?//
But it clearly isn’t. From the figures in your link, 177k deaths from 22m confirmed cases in the UK is one death for every 125 cases. The worldwide figure of 6.2m deaths from 521m cases is one death for every 83 cases. Put another way, the UK’s survival rate among confirmed cases is 99.2% but it is only 98.8% worldwide.
//In fairness they didn't know what they were dealing with and therefore couldn't assume that this virus would follow any known pattern//
But they did. They knew as soon as the virus had been isolated that it was similar in nature to the SARS-Cov-1 virus responsible for an outbreak in 2002-04. That was a very much smaller epidemic, but the similarities were identified. But that apart, the authorities should also have borne in mind that no common airborne virus in history has ever been successfully prevented from spreading. It is simply impossible, as China and North Korea are currently discovering. Unfortunately neither of these countries will admit that their strategy of containment has failed and the suffering their people will endure (not from the virus, but from the pointless measures introduced to try to contain it) will be enormous.
Unfortunately the strategy adopted by most of the world was heavily tainted by that of the Chinese, who immediately embarked on a programme of strict testing, isolation and containment. Most European countries did likewise to a greater or lesser degree and it is not certain by any means that any of the measures had any significant effect on the spread. No other epidemic in recent history has ever been treated in such a way.
// - and don't forget the forecast from science, which fortunately proved to be inaccurate, was absolutely horrendous.//
Yes, and those forecasts were repeatedly shown to be so far adrift as to be completely useless. Yet time and again they were produced and heeded. I just hope that any enquiry into this disastrous affair identifies these mistakes so as to ensure they are never, ever repeated. But I’m not holding my breath.
//…even without letting it rip, 175,000 Britons have died of it. I can't see any good reason why it would have been wise to lose more.//
There is no evidence to suggest that fewer people would have died without restrictions. The virus came in waves and there was no direct correlation between the rise and fall of those waves and the restrictive measures taken to combat them. In fact, very often an inverse relationship appeared. The best they could be said to have done is to delay or defer some infections, not to prevent them entirely. Sweden has recently been shown to have had a “good pandemic” with its numbers of deaths no worse than countries where harsh lockdowns took place. They recorded a high number of deaths early on, but far fewer later. They had very little in the way of restrictions.
But it clearly isn’t. From the figures in your link, 177k deaths from 22m confirmed cases in the UK is one death for every 125 cases. The worldwide figure of 6.2m deaths from 521m cases is one death for every 83 cases. Put another way, the UK’s survival rate among confirmed cases is 99.2% but it is only 98.8% worldwide.
//In fairness they didn't know what they were dealing with and therefore couldn't assume that this virus would follow any known pattern//
But they did. They knew as soon as the virus had been isolated that it was similar in nature to the SARS-Cov-1 virus responsible for an outbreak in 2002-04. That was a very much smaller epidemic, but the similarities were identified. But that apart, the authorities should also have borne in mind that no common airborne virus in history has ever been successfully prevented from spreading. It is simply impossible, as China and North Korea are currently discovering. Unfortunately neither of these countries will admit that their strategy of containment has failed and the suffering their people will endure (not from the virus, but from the pointless measures introduced to try to contain it) will be enormous.
Unfortunately the strategy adopted by most of the world was heavily tainted by that of the Chinese, who immediately embarked on a programme of strict testing, isolation and containment. Most European countries did likewise to a greater or lesser degree and it is not certain by any means that any of the measures had any significant effect on the spread. No other epidemic in recent history has ever been treated in such a way.
// - and don't forget the forecast from science, which fortunately proved to be inaccurate, was absolutely horrendous.//
Yes, and those forecasts were repeatedly shown to be so far adrift as to be completely useless. Yet time and again they were produced and heeded. I just hope that any enquiry into this disastrous affair identifies these mistakes so as to ensure they are never, ever repeated. But I’m not holding my breath.
//…even without letting it rip, 175,000 Britons have died of it. I can't see any good reason why it would have been wise to lose more.//
There is no evidence to suggest that fewer people would have died without restrictions. The virus came in waves and there was no direct correlation between the rise and fall of those waves and the restrictive measures taken to combat them. In fact, very often an inverse relationship appeared. The best they could be said to have done is to delay or defer some infections, not to prevent them entirely. Sweden has recently been shown to have had a “good pandemic” with its numbers of deaths no worse than countries where harsh lockdowns took place. They recorded a high number of deaths early on, but far fewer later. They had very little in the way of restrictions.
Wouldn't be statistically significant either way if we'd have "let it rip". Vulnerable people caught it and a percentage died in either case. What would have made any difference would have been to identify and protect those vulnerable, not introduce them to risk before we had any handle on how to prevent it. Meanwhile overconcentration on one thing meant folk have suffered from other conditions that were pushed into the lower priority category.
//Should that "fewer" have been "more"?//
Yes thanks Corby. At least someone reads my diatribes. Oh for an "edit" facility!
//With the restrictions in place, we had time to develop vaccines.//
There is no evidence to support the idea that the restrictions had any influence on the either the number of infections or deaths. It's just assumed that they did. But so influential were those restrictions of other aspects of health and the economy that the assumption needed to be robustly challenged, not meekly passed on the nod.
//Vaccination unquestionably improved survival rates.//
Indeed they did. And it was really the only strategy that was going to keep deaths and serious illness down.
//To assume that the vaccinated would have survived even if they weren't vaccinated (i.e. "let rip" early on) would be wrong.//
The vast majority of them would have (simply because the vast majority of Covid sufferers survive, with or without a vaccine).
The question that needs to be addressed is why, in the entire known history of airborne viral diseases, had restrictions on liberties and the wholesale forced closure of businesses and organisations never been undertaken before? What made this pandemic so different from all those previously? Why did governments across the world believe they could contain such a virus and even "defeat" it (a term that our very own Prime Minister used on more than one occasion when preaching from his lectern flanked by the Two Ronnies)?
Yes thanks Corby. At least someone reads my diatribes. Oh for an "edit" facility!
//With the restrictions in place, we had time to develop vaccines.//
There is no evidence to support the idea that the restrictions had any influence on the either the number of infections or deaths. It's just assumed that they did. But so influential were those restrictions of other aspects of health and the economy that the assumption needed to be robustly challenged, not meekly passed on the nod.
//Vaccination unquestionably improved survival rates.//
Indeed they did. And it was really the only strategy that was going to keep deaths and serious illness down.
//To assume that the vaccinated would have survived even if they weren't vaccinated (i.e. "let rip" early on) would be wrong.//
The vast majority of them would have (simply because the vast majority of Covid sufferers survive, with or without a vaccine).
The question that needs to be addressed is why, in the entire known history of airborne viral diseases, had restrictions on liberties and the wholesale forced closure of businesses and organisations never been undertaken before? What made this pandemic so different from all those previously? Why did governments across the world believe they could contain such a virus and even "defeat" it (a term that our very own Prime Minister used on more than one occasion when preaching from his lectern flanked by the Two Ronnies)?
> There is no evidence to support the idea that the restrictions had any influence on the either the number of infections or deaths.
The evidence is that, with no restrictions, there were far more infections within a given space of time. And if, during that space of time, those being infected were not vaccinated, because there was no vaccine at that time, then of course there were more deaths unless ultimately the vaccine was ineffective in preventing death, and there is plenty of evidence to show that it wasn't ineffective, it was effective.
So ultimately, measured over say 10 years, the number of infections will be roughly the same - there is no getting away from the fact that the virus has to go through the whole popultation. But when those infections happened, and whether those infected were vaccinated or not at the time of their infection, will make a huge difference to the numbers that suffered serious illness or death.
Even the Queen has had Covid now, and nobody seemed particularly concerned. You're not telling me it would have been the same if she hadn't been vaccinated, i.e. she caught it in March 2020 instead of February 2022.
The evidence is that, with no restrictions, there were far more infections within a given space of time. And if, during that space of time, those being infected were not vaccinated, because there was no vaccine at that time, then of course there were more deaths unless ultimately the vaccine was ineffective in preventing death, and there is plenty of evidence to show that it wasn't ineffective, it was effective.
So ultimately, measured over say 10 years, the number of infections will be roughly the same - there is no getting away from the fact that the virus has to go through the whole popultation. But when those infections happened, and whether those infected were vaccinated or not at the time of their infection, will make a huge difference to the numbers that suffered serious illness or death.
Even the Queen has had Covid now, and nobody seemed particularly concerned. You're not telling me it would have been the same if she hadn't been vaccinated, i.e. she caught it in March 2020 instead of February 2022.
The vulnerable needed to be protected (if they wanted to be) and this would have included the Queen and everybody else aged 94. Nobody else needed to have been. This is roughly what happened in Sweden. They had quite a high number of deaths early on, but overall have fared quite well. More than that, it is very unfortunate that for two years, no health concern mattered bar Covid. Time will tell, but it is very likely that, in time, the cure will turn out to have been worse than the disease.
> The vulnerable needed to be protected (if they wanted to be) and this would have included the Queen and everybody else aged 94.
How should the vulnerable have been identified?
> Nobody else needed to have been
It's not all about deaths. Even assuming the vulnerable could be identified and isolated, what about the effects of long Covid and other serious health issues that non-vulnerable people seem to have picked up? Like all of those listed on this page:
https:/
> This is roughly what happened in Sweden. They had quite a high number of deaths early on, but overall have fared quite well.
The population density of Sweden is quite different to the UK. We are a bit more tightly packed. Transmission is easier here.
Do you have a wild guess, or some scientific or mathematical evidence, what the outcome in the UK would have been if we had followed the Swedish model? How many more, or less, deaths and serious long term health conditions would we have experienced in this country?
Now, unlike then, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can see the effect that Covid has on people's long term health and chances of survival. But even with all that hindsight, it's impossible to know for sure what would have happened if we had allowed Covid to let rip before anybody was vaccinated.
How should the vulnerable have been identified?
> Nobody else needed to have been
It's not all about deaths. Even assuming the vulnerable could be identified and isolated, what about the effects of long Covid and other serious health issues that non-vulnerable people seem to have picked up? Like all of those listed on this page:
https:/
> This is roughly what happened in Sweden. They had quite a high number of deaths early on, but overall have fared quite well.
The population density of Sweden is quite different to the UK. We are a bit more tightly packed. Transmission is easier here.
Do you have a wild guess, or some scientific or mathematical evidence, what the outcome in the UK would have been if we had followed the Swedish model? How many more, or less, deaths and serious long term health conditions would we have experienced in this country?
Now, unlike then, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can see the effect that Covid has on people's long term health and chances of survival. But even with all that hindsight, it's impossible to know for sure what would have happened if we had allowed Covid to let rip before anybody was vaccinated.
OP I won't be worried by monkey pox, or any other pox etc..I wasn't that worried about Covid and was prepared to avoid too much mixing etc (as you do when there's a 'nasty' about)- but I was and am worried about the ridiculous reaction, the damage this caused and the lasting effect on societal thinking.
I won't go into too much detail. These questions have been done to death in threads during the pandemic. I addressed most of them, and I've steered this thread off topic enough. Just one point:
//Now, unlike then, we have the benefit of hindsight.//
As I said, we had the benefit of foresight. There have been many, many pandemics involving similar airborne respiratory viruses in the past. Some less severe, some more so than Covid 19. They are not ancient history - the most recent was in 2002 but there were serious outbreaks in 1957 and 1968. None of them, absolutely none of them, elicited a response anything like that which was made when Covid reared its head. Never before has the UK or (as far as I know) any other country attempted to contain the spread of an airborne virus by imposing such severe restrictions on businesses and individuals. I hope it's revealed why this was so and I also hope that nothing like it is ever countenanced again because the damage done to the country - indeed the world - by those measures will be felt for decades.
//Now, unlike then, we have the benefit of hindsight.//
As I said, we had the benefit of foresight. There have been many, many pandemics involving similar airborne respiratory viruses in the past. Some less severe, some more so than Covid 19. They are not ancient history - the most recent was in 2002 but there were serious outbreaks in 1957 and 1968. None of them, absolutely none of them, elicited a response anything like that which was made when Covid reared its head. Never before has the UK or (as far as I know) any other country attempted to contain the spread of an airborne virus by imposing such severe restrictions on businesses and individuals. I hope it's revealed why this was so and I also hope that nothing like it is ever countenanced again because the damage done to the country - indeed the world - by those measures will be felt for decades.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
How it Works9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.