Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance2 mins ago
The Great Barrington Declaration
56 Answers
Seems a fair few medical professionals agree with what I and a few other ABers have been saying for sometime only to be called covidiots by the worshipers of the great covid.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. 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.
even the Mail - the Daily Mail! - notes right under the headline: "Concept of herd immunity controversial because there is no proof it will work"
But we'll just ignore that because obviously these scientists are right and other scientists are wrong - because we want them to be. Meanwhile, put the old and susceptible into care homes where they'll be safe.
But we'll just ignore that because obviously these scientists are right and other scientists are wrong - because we want them to be. Meanwhile, put the old and susceptible into care homes where they'll be safe.
NJ: 'Sectors which contribute hugely to the nation's economy (hospitality, travel to name but two) have seen large scale destruction and that will continue to escalate even with the "relaxations" that have taken place.@
If you do a little research you'll find that it is the grey pound which contributes significantly to those 2 sectors. The very people attempting Herd immunity would......decimate.
If you do a little research you'll find that it is the grey pound which contributes significantly to those 2 sectors. The very people attempting Herd immunity would......decimate.
//If you do a little research you'll find that it is the grey pound which contributes significantly to those 2 sectors. The very people attempting Herd immunity would......decimate.//
Indeed, Zacs. The “grey pound” contributes significantly to the economy as a whole. As I understand it, the report suggests that those most vulnerable (which include the elderly) should be encouraged – though not compelled – to shield whilst everybody else cracks on. This is the strategy I have advocated from the beginning. I believe the current strategy does not work. I say “believe” because I long ago lost sight of precisely what its aim is. But assuming it is aimed at reducing infections it’s patently obvious that it is failing. To keep doing the same thing - especially when it is causing widespread collateral damage - but expecting the results to change is somewhat unwise.
Indeed, Zacs. The “grey pound” contributes significantly to the economy as a whole. As I understand it, the report suggests that those most vulnerable (which include the elderly) should be encouraged – though not compelled – to shield whilst everybody else cracks on. This is the strategy I have advocated from the beginning. I believe the current strategy does not work. I say “believe” because I long ago lost sight of precisely what its aim is. But assuming it is aimed at reducing infections it’s patently obvious that it is failing. To keep doing the same thing - especially when it is causing widespread collateral damage - but expecting the results to change is somewhat unwise.
NJ, I don't think the grey pound brigade (which I'm not far off joining btw) would take kindly to being told to self isolate for an unspecified length of time whilst watching the dwindling sands fall into the lower chamber of the egg timer of life.
As you concur that they are a significant contributor to our economy, surely their isolation, whilst the rest of us attempt some huge herd immunity experiment, would curtail much of their spending thereby hastening our (and other countries, should they go down the same path) economic demise.
As you concur that they are a significant contributor to our economy, surely their isolation, whilst the rest of us attempt some huge herd immunity experiment, would curtail much of their spending thereby hastening our (and other countries, should they go down the same path) economic demise.
By what measure is the declaration ‘Great’ ?
60,000 supporters is a big number.
So is 36,000,000
- the number of people who have had the virus.
So is 1,000,000
- the number of people who have died from it.
UK signatory Sunetra Gupta never supported the UK lockdown. She wanted to go down the herd immunity route of letting the virus kill whoever it was going to kill. Many of her peers disagreed with her.
60,000 supporters is a big number.
So is 36,000,000
- the number of people who have had the virus.
So is 1,000,000
- the number of people who have died from it.
UK signatory Sunetra Gupta never supported the UK lockdown. She wanted to go down the herd immunity route of letting the virus kill whoever it was going to kill. Many of her peers disagreed with her.
// I don't think the grey pound brigade (which I'm not far off joining btw) would take kindly to being told to self isolate for an unspecified length of time whilst watching the dwindling sands fall into the lower chamber of the egg timer of life.//
No they wouldn't be told, Zacs. As I think I made clear, they would be given advice as to the risk they face and left to make their own decision whether to isolate or not. They'd be in largely the same position they are in now: they could go out and about if they wish or stay in if they wish. The current strategy (to suppress the virus) is clearly a failure but not only that, it's causing huge damage. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy if they were compelled to stay in. But younger people are not happy at being told to restrict their activities, sometimes meaning they cannot go to work or to their education.
Those most at risk are the elderly or those with other health problems. The vast majority of the population face no serious risk. Those at risk can take whatever precautions they think fit; those not at so much risk can do likewise. This will mean providing proper support for those who wish to isolate (rather than simply telling them to simply get a neighbour to shop for them or get an online delivery which is either not available or they do not have the skills or equipment to handle).
The current strategy has failed - it was always going to. Time for a fresh approach.
No they wouldn't be told, Zacs. As I think I made clear, they would be given advice as to the risk they face and left to make their own decision whether to isolate or not. They'd be in largely the same position they are in now: they could go out and about if they wish or stay in if they wish. The current strategy (to suppress the virus) is clearly a failure but not only that, it's causing huge damage. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy if they were compelled to stay in. But younger people are not happy at being told to restrict their activities, sometimes meaning they cannot go to work or to their education.
Those most at risk are the elderly or those with other health problems. The vast majority of the population face no serious risk. Those at risk can take whatever precautions they think fit; those not at so much risk can do likewise. This will mean providing proper support for those who wish to isolate (rather than simply telling them to simply get a neighbour to shop for them or get an online delivery which is either not available or they do not have the skills or equipment to handle).
The current strategy has failed - it was always going to. Time for a fresh approach.
// The current strategy has failed - it was always going to. Time for a fresh approach. //
In the UK, the original strategy was too late in being implemented. Covid-19 was already rife before they reacted to it.
The second strategy, lockdown, contained and suppressed the virus, greatly reducing the infection rate and deaths.
The third strategy, easing of lockdown, was the biggest error, and undid much of the good work previously.
So today, the Government have lost control, we have a second wave, and lockdown2.
In the UK, the original strategy was too late in being implemented. Covid-19 was already rife before they reacted to it.
The second strategy, lockdown, contained and suppressed the virus, greatly reducing the infection rate and deaths.
The third strategy, easing of lockdown, was the biggest error, and undid much of the good work previously.
So today, the Government have lost control, we have a second wave, and lockdown2.
Sunk - We don't really have a second wave, especially if you base the numbers on Covid-caused deaths. What we have is a massive increase in positive tests, but then Hancock's much-promised testing capacity was never realized. To fiddle the testing capacity figures, they included loads of theoretical capacity that was never available to the general public, so we have absolutely no idea just how many people would have tested positive when the hospital cases & deaths were at their peak. (Over 3000 hospital admissions per day was the peak - The Daily Mail has some very good graphs if you want to check.)
Now that, with the usual delay between political promises and implementation, large-scale testing is actually happening, they're wetting themselves because the positive cases have gone through the roof. Strange, that.
A significant part of the overall problem is that the richer parts of the country are keeping the impact of the pandemic within reasonable bounds. This is not the case in the poorer areas, yet the economic impact is falling fairly equally everywhere. (e.g. businessmen are practically unable to do business overseas whether they're from Bristol or from Bolton). This is not just the case in the UK. Many of our neighbouring countries are also finding that it's areas of high-density living where we find big increases in the percentage of infections. Madrid is a very good example of this. (The original WHO & International team who went to Wuhan in February found that the majority of positive cases there had been infected in the home. This pushes up the R figure significantly as 1 individual can infect the rest of the people with whom they live.)
Clearly, it's not going to be practical to lockdown just people who live with many others. I believe, however, that there is a very strong case for much more stringent lock-down in the areas where the infections & hospital admissions rates are highest but getting the economy moving again in the rest of the country.
Now that, with the usual delay between political promises and implementation, large-scale testing is actually happening, they're wetting themselves because the positive cases have gone through the roof. Strange, that.
A significant part of the overall problem is that the richer parts of the country are keeping the impact of the pandemic within reasonable bounds. This is not the case in the poorer areas, yet the economic impact is falling fairly equally everywhere. (e.g. businessmen are practically unable to do business overseas whether they're from Bristol or from Bolton). This is not just the case in the UK. Many of our neighbouring countries are also finding that it's areas of high-density living where we find big increases in the percentage of infections. Madrid is a very good example of this. (The original WHO & International team who went to Wuhan in February found that the majority of positive cases there had been infected in the home. This pushes up the R figure significantly as 1 individual can infect the rest of the people with whom they live.)
Clearly, it's not going to be practical to lockdown just people who live with many others. I believe, however, that there is a very strong case for much more stringent lock-down in the areas where the infections & hospital admissions rates are highest but getting the economy moving again in the rest of the country.
‘ They'd be in largely the same position they are in now’
No they wouldn’t. They can currently make the decision to go out into an environment where there are certain controls educing their risk of catching Covid19. If we go to a herd immunity situation, the risk would be exponentially higher.
Big difference.
No they wouldn’t. They can currently make the decision to go out into an environment where there are certain controls educing their risk of catching Covid19. If we go to a herd immunity situation, the risk would be exponentially higher.
Big difference.
God I have found out what the Great Barrington Declaration is:
"foo it all doesnt work - and so let eveything rip ! Forget the science and any training we had and ignore 200 000 deaths in America just say it is flu like the President does. The end."
singed a scientist ( well quite a lof them all who seem not to be able to add)
Manifesto ? nope - throw science oudda the window and then you have a very blank piece of paper to read from
Have fun boys and girls
"foo it all doesnt work - and so let eveything rip ! Forget the science and any training we had and ignore 200 000 deaths in America just say it is flu like the President does. The end."
singed a scientist ( well quite a lof them all who seem not to be able to add)
Manifesto ? nope - throw science oudda the window and then you have a very blank piece of paper to read from
Have fun boys and girls
I like the idea of Herd Immunity is subjective
it is what you say it is: I am happy today, so Herd Immunity is 100% and yet I may be sad to morrow and so it will be 50% or lower. and it means what I say it means ( see above)
Say - 1000 cases on monday and 2000 case on Friday - and let us say doubling times are what you say they are - -
see above
you might subjectively say - they havent doubled - it is some other multiple
and you might say I dont like a doubling factor over time ( mon to Fri) - I think it should be feet or yards
so on that data we have a doubling time of 2.45 yards.
subjective you see
words mean what tyou say they mean
thank you for getting down to here
it is what you say it is: I am happy today, so Herd Immunity is 100% and yet I may be sad to morrow and so it will be 50% or lower. and it means what I say it means ( see above)
Say - 1000 cases on monday and 2000 case on Friday - and let us say doubling times are what you say they are - -
see above
you might subjectively say - they havent doubled - it is some other multiple
and you might say I dont like a doubling factor over time ( mon to Fri) - I think it should be feet or yards
so on that data we have a doubling time of 2.45 yards.
subjective you see
words mean what tyou say they mean
thank you for getting down to here
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Animals & Nature7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 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.