Crosswords1 min 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.
Jim, //The answer to that point is to consider the situation had we taken no steps to combat Covid at all. //
Irrelevant. We did. The question is since we not going to eradicate the virus, and since the vast majority of sufferers recover, should we continue to disrupt life and lives the world over or should we accept that we must learn to live with it?
Irrelevant. We did. The question is since we not going to eradicate the virus, and since the vast majority of sufferers recover, should we continue to disrupt life and lives the world over or should we accept that we must learn to live with it?
‘ Hospital admissions of COVID-19-confirmed patients in England increased by 61% to 4.43 per 100,000 people in the week ending 11 July 2021. The rates increased in all English regions in the latest week’
https:/
https:/
It's still within our power to eradicate the virus. And, again, with the narrow focus on deaths. Not everybody who "recovers" from the virus is really better, and it's already been understood that many survivors suffer from severe long-term problems that are, if anything, worse by virtue of being prolonged suffering.
There are approximately three realistic scenarios for the rest of the year:
1. The rise in serious cases and deaths soon peters out, and we're left with what I would assume is the scenario you are envisaging, whereby maybe 10,000-15,000 die from Covid in the UK for the rest of year. This is clearly tragic, but is also an inevitable part of life, and in this event we can be thankful as a society for small mercies.
2. The rise continues, but the vaccine defences hold firm enough that, although far more people die than are necessary, it's also still "only" 30,000-odd across five months, and again a price worth paying for a functional society.
3. A vaccine-resistant variant emerges, and we are once again facing huge daily death tolls and packed hospitals for a sustained period. Facing an absolute bloodbath (for, without social distancing measures in place, flu is also free to spread), the Government is forced to bring back serious controls in the face of a wave that resembles the first peak.
Take your pick with of the three is more likely. I'm inclined towards (2) at the moment, representing an average of 200 daily deaths at most over the next five months. It's worth bearing in mind that we are already averaging around 50 a day and increasing, and, while, yes, that is small at the moment, if the last year has taught us anything it should be the meaning of exponential growth.
And this still leaves unaddressed the long-term damage to many tens of thousands more. The problem with the " we will have to live with it" approach is that many won't.
There are approximately three realistic scenarios for the rest of the year:
1. The rise in serious cases and deaths soon peters out, and we're left with what I would assume is the scenario you are envisaging, whereby maybe 10,000-15,000 die from Covid in the UK for the rest of year. This is clearly tragic, but is also an inevitable part of life, and in this event we can be thankful as a society for small mercies.
2. The rise continues, but the vaccine defences hold firm enough that, although far more people die than are necessary, it's also still "only" 30,000-odd across five months, and again a price worth paying for a functional society.
3. A vaccine-resistant variant emerges, and we are once again facing huge daily death tolls and packed hospitals for a sustained period. Facing an absolute bloodbath (for, without social distancing measures in place, flu is also free to spread), the Government is forced to bring back serious controls in the face of a wave that resembles the first peak.
Take your pick with of the three is more likely. I'm inclined towards (2) at the moment, representing an average of 200 daily deaths at most over the next five months. It's worth bearing in mind that we are already averaging around 50 a day and increasing, and, while, yes, that is small at the moment, if the last year has taught us anything it should be the meaning of exponential growth.
And this still leaves unaddressed the long-term damage to many tens of thousands more. The problem with the " we will have to live with it" approach is that many won't.
//It's still within our power to eradicate the virus.//
I'm sorry but that is nonsense, at least in the short to medium term. You would have to ensure that all 7 billion people in the World were either vaccinated or isolated at the same time for a set period. That is not going to happen.
In addition you have countries like North Korea, Iran and China who are highly secretive and wont give you a straight answer or co operate.
100% eradication is not going to happen, the best one can hope for is that it eventually 'burns itself out' but I have not seen any reliable scientist say that is going to happen any time soon.
I'm sorry but that is nonsense, at least in the short to medium term. You would have to ensure that all 7 billion people in the World were either vaccinated or isolated at the same time for a set period. That is not going to happen.
In addition you have countries like North Korea, Iran and China who are highly secretive and wont give you a straight answer or co operate.
100% eradication is not going to happen, the best one can hope for is that it eventually 'burns itself out' but I have not seen any reliable scientist say that is going to happen any time soon.
I think there's going to be a huge increase in the number of cases.
Tomorrow's British Grand Prix at Silverstone is going to have 140,000 spectators, and it's all well and good saying that it's safer because it's in the open air, but what about toilet facilities? If each spectator needs to go (say) twice in the day, then that's 280,000 visits to grotty Portaloos. Plenty of other examples: Wembley, cricket matches, Wimbledon - though at least at the latter the bogs are no doubt more salubrious.
Tomorrow's British Grand Prix at Silverstone is going to have 140,000 spectators, and it's all well and good saying that it's safer because it's in the open air, but what about toilet facilities? If each spectator needs to go (say) twice in the day, then that's 280,000 visits to grotty Portaloos. Plenty of other examples: Wembley, cricket matches, Wimbledon - though at least at the latter the bogs are no doubt more salubrious.
Also you've seen the figures I've quoted, so you know what my expectations for the next few months are. If Covid deaths are limited to 30,000 over the next five months that can be called something of a qualified relief, but significantly more than that would be clearly a huge tragedy. This isn't scaremongering. It's reasoned assessment.
I should also point out that the particularly worrisome scenario, in case it wasn't clear, is what happens if/when a Coivd wave and flu wave align. Last winter, owing in large part to the lockdown measures, there were barely any flu deaths at all. If the Government persists in this course of action, refusing to respond and allowing Covid cases to remain sky-high, then it is very difficult to envisage our being so lucky twice.
I should also point out that the particularly worrisome scenario, in case it wasn't clear, is what happens if/when a Coivd wave and flu wave align. Last winter, owing in large part to the lockdown measures, there were barely any flu deaths at all. If the Government persists in this course of action, refusing to respond and allowing Covid cases to remain sky-high, then it is very difficult to envisage our being so lucky twice.
Where is the threshold between scaremongering and reasoned assessment, in your opinion?
There is no speculation, by the way, in the statement that many more people in the UK are going to die of Covid. The only question is how many. I'm curious what you would consider an "acceptable" number, and what would represent a failure. For my part, I've explained what I think is the "tolerable" upper limit, ie around 30,000 by the end of the year. If we don't get even close to that total, you were right and I'll be thankful; if we exceed it, I'm curious how far you'll move the goalposts again in order to justify the charge of scaremongering.
There is no speculation, by the way, in the statement that many more people in the UK are going to die of Covid. The only question is how many. I'm curious what you would consider an "acceptable" number, and what would represent a failure. For my part, I've explained what I think is the "tolerable" upper limit, ie around 30,000 by the end of the year. If we don't get even close to that total, you were right and I'll be thankful; if we exceed it, I'm curious how far you'll move the goalposts again in order to justify the charge of scaremongering.
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.