Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Should We Take This Warming Seriously?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. 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.
It's a pretty obvious risk: if you allow a disease to spread so widely in the presence of a vaccine then it increases the chance of a resistant variant emerging. It's also patently obvious that the UK is not isolated from the rest of the world, so that if indeed that does happen then it will have devastating consequences here and elsewhere.
It's not going to change the Government's course, though. Hopefully, in a few months' time, warnings like this will look silly rather than accurate.
It's not going to change the Government's course, though. Hopefully, in a few months' time, warnings like this will look silly rather than accurate.
Should we take it seriously? Whilst awareness is essential, in practice it’s vital that we remain realistic. Disturbingly large numbers are once again being bandied around but, when broken down, death figures equate to 0.05% of the world population, and infection rates to 27%. Since the vast majority of those who fall foul of Covid recover, the figures are, in my opinion, misleadingly alarmist.
My question then would be, will retaining restrictions indefinitely result in curing the problem or simply in delaying, and hence, prolonging the spread of the disease? I suspect the latter.
My question then would be, will retaining restrictions indefinitely result in curing the problem or simply in delaying, and hence, prolonging the spread of the disease? I suspect the latter.
There's only one way to score a total victory over Covid, it is true, but nor should we be in such a hurry to surrender to it. There is a middle path, which is to ensure as far as possible that social distancing and other preventative measures are in force. This wouldn't cripple businesses, and it would help to keep case and death numbers relatively low.
I'm also tired of having to rebut this "alarmist" nonsense. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I believe that everybody, or even that most people, will die of Covid. This is neither true nor even remotely the point -- although it is worth remembering that the total number of deaths is only as low as it is precisely because the world has reacted to the "alarmist" warnings. The death toll of 4 million, which is in any case an underestimate -- the true figure will never be known, but is likely to be rather closer at the moment to 10 million -- would be in the region of ten times higher at this point had the disease spread so widely. That is to say nothing of the tens of millions again who would have suffered from the serious organ damage and other post-Covid symptoms. These totals don't need to be in the hundreds of millions in order to pose a serious threat.
Further, the objective of vaccinations is to try and ensure as far as possible that herd immunity is achieved. It makes no sense to release controls before that target is reached, because -- as we are seeing -- Covid is particularly virulent and spreads out of control even with a heavily-vaccinated population. And, given that Covid has also proven adaptable, it makes even less sense to give it such an easy opportunity to adapt to our best weapon against it.
If, by the end of the year, Covid-related deaths in the UK never again exceed, let us say, 200 daily, and if no vaccine-resistant variant emerges, then this gamble will have paid off. If, as is sadly more likely, the death toll mounts higher come September or later, returning to the scale of the worst of the pandemic, then it will not have, and the Government and its supporters have serious questions to ask about the sacrifices they are asking others to make.
Or, put another way, if you can mock me in six months for being pessimistic, I couldn't be happier.
I'm also tired of having to rebut this "alarmist" nonsense. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I believe that everybody, or even that most people, will die of Covid. This is neither true nor even remotely the point -- although it is worth remembering that the total number of deaths is only as low as it is precisely because the world has reacted to the "alarmist" warnings. The death toll of 4 million, which is in any case an underestimate -- the true figure will never be known, but is likely to be rather closer at the moment to 10 million -- would be in the region of ten times higher at this point had the disease spread so widely. That is to say nothing of the tens of millions again who would have suffered from the serious organ damage and other post-Covid symptoms. These totals don't need to be in the hundreds of millions in order to pose a serious threat.
Further, the objective of vaccinations is to try and ensure as far as possible that herd immunity is achieved. It makes no sense to release controls before that target is reached, because -- as we are seeing -- Covid is particularly virulent and spreads out of control even with a heavily-vaccinated population. And, given that Covid has also proven adaptable, it makes even less sense to give it such an easy opportunity to adapt to our best weapon against it.
If, by the end of the year, Covid-related deaths in the UK never again exceed, let us say, 200 daily, and if no vaccine-resistant variant emerges, then this gamble will have paid off. If, as is sadly more likely, the death toll mounts higher come September or later, returning to the scale of the worst of the pandemic, then it will not have, and the Government and its supporters have serious questions to ask about the sacrifices they are asking others to make.
Or, put another way, if you can mock me in six months for being pessimistic, I couldn't be happier.
Jim, //You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension …//
Who are you talking to? No one has mentioned you.
//I'm also tired of having to rebut this "alarmist" nonsense. //
You don’t ‘have’ to rebut anything. You’re not an official spokesman on Covid but simply a member of AB taking part in discussions here. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s.
Who are you talking to? No one has mentioned you.
//I'm also tired of having to rebut this "alarmist" nonsense. //
You don’t ‘have’ to rebut anything. You’re not an official spokesman on Covid but simply a member of AB taking part in discussions here. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s.
//Should we take it seriously? Whilst awareness is essential, in practice it’s vital that we remain realistic. //
blimey it is true to say some Abers 'answer' questions with no reference to what has gone before
say nothing ever.....
The politicians want to do the experiment.
the people are sick of being locked down
do the experiment !
[every parent will know the experience of - dont put your fingers in the dog'smouth it will bite you.....OK..... ( later ) you have to do the experiment - PUT your fingers back in the dogs mouth and see what happens]
blimey it is true to say some Abers 'answer' questions with no reference to what has gone before
say nothing ever.....
The politicians want to do the experiment.
the people are sick of being locked down
do the experiment !
[every parent will know the experience of - dont put your fingers in the dog'smouth it will bite you.....OK..... ( later ) you have to do the experiment - PUT your fingers back in the dogs mouth and see what happens]
Jim, I have enormous respect for the prof. I think he's quite brilliant.
However, given the figures, I am of the opinion that, to the detriment of other things - not least world economy - science is over-reacting. Almost 10 million people die annually from cancer and yet many cancer sufferers, along with those suffering from other conditions, are now being side-lined because of the 0.05% who have died of Covid. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.
However, given the figures, I am of the opinion that, to the detriment of other things - not least world economy - science is over-reacting. Almost 10 million people die annually from cancer and yet many cancer sufferers, along with those suffering from other conditions, are now being side-lined because of the 0.05% who have died of Covid. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.
The answer to that point is to consider the situation had we taken no steps to combat Covid at all. The health services would have been overwhelmed regardless, and they'd have just been sidelined even more seriously than was already the case. Alternatively, imagine the difference that could have been achieved had we responded much faster still, so that the disease barely even had a chance to become endemic.
There is indeed a hard balance to be struck, no question, but Covid is an urgent threat, and a threat that remains present, and merely trying to "live with it" is just inviting perpetual tragedy.
There is indeed a hard balance to be struck, no question, but Covid is an urgent threat, and a threat that remains present, and merely trying to "live with it" is just inviting perpetual tragedy.
Are some people becoming addicted to being told what to do by the government? It's just that when I hear that people are confused by the new rules over mask wearing from Monday, is it because they like to be told what to do rather than think for themselves? It's a worrying trend. Just for the record, wear a mask if you want, if not then dont, it's not rocket science.
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.