@ Deep philosophie ---- > >Wanna play dice, wanna play Russian roulette with my life with your policies? And when it gets worse we come to a point where we cant afford to keep ill people like you alive anymore because your an unafordable cost factor and you take up health service capacity thats needed for essential workers and you cant expect the rest of us to put ourselves at risk by crippling our health systems and economy by keeping all ill people like you alive ? IF it goes on it will come to a point where ill people and old people will be asked to do their duty to the planet and volunteer for euthenasia ........ to take trhe strress offf and protect the rest of us ........ and only realy evil , arogant egoists will refuse to do their patriotic duty ......... and if we cant get enough decent people to do whats right we can still round them up and give them a neck shot . BUT ...... anyway ........ i dont understand ? ........ IF 3000 people a day have to die why dont we just round up 3000 useless people every day and give them a neck shot and voila !!! Problem solved and 3000 inocent and usefull people will survive !!!
No, of course not. But can it be that you are (a bit) focused on negative reports about COVID-19? Well....I don't have something that I'd consider as pre-illness... no overweight--- my BMI is 22.8..... .... OK I do smoke from time to time.... Anyway I try to post positive works. And when I post works about seroprevalence I do not want to propagate herd-immunity. Just saying we are closer to than we thought.
Can it get any more "negative" than REAL REPORTS on long Covid or even deaths due to Covid? Ach, these doctors writing obit... sorry, medical reports of... well seriously sick or even dead people.... Just focusing on "negativity" - they should be banned, really.... At least from the media - I mean, how dare they scare the population from going to.... makes us some profits, eh? Well, I never... Oh, sorry, what you REALLY mean is we SHOULD PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE with our lives by "focusing on rosy Covid stories"?!?!?!?!?!? Well, that's a novel idea, Dr. Yen - always look on the bright side of death.... and f*&% "Do no harm", naturally.... In fact, as one explains neatly above: it is our patriotic duty not to be a nuisance and die, so others could live the same way as before and NOT having to contribute, as solidarity is soooo passeeeee.... The lovely eugenics people, such a brilliant club of dearies...
So You stalking dis thread trying to catch one Think one poster caught a dozen just in de last week and him was psychotic enough already
This is the zombie TV generation. These are not people - a simple crowd for whom others decide. Spoiler: people -NO
Hey cool !!! What about some holiday snaps ? ...... or pictures of cats ? .......... and an explanation of what you want to say ? Why you posted those pictures ?
Either they are fact or they aren't. Are there lots of individuals who don't get any symptoms at all or aren't there?!? To associate works about seroprevalence to eugenics is just absurd. There is no 'human authority' that would have decided you have got pre-immunity but you (the other one) doesn't. It's a research on blood samples to have a look if there is any mechanism of immune defence to COVID-19 already. Maybe those have suffered much already from a former infection of a former coronavirus (what they maybe had experienced as a summer flu)!
No, @Yen, you are dead wrong! This is not about "research/work" about seroprevalence but about what comes out of its findings! One more time, this is about a dangerous policy, a libertarian public health policy, which interprets the numbers informed by their world-view and ideology, where Human Beings are but tools, means to an end, you "calculate them" and you do not bat an eyelid... Like so: The head of the World Health Organization warned against the idea that herd immunity might be a realistic strategy to stop the pandemic, dismissing such proposals as “simply unethical." The head of the World Health Organization warned against the idea that herd immunity might be a realistic strategy to stop the pandemic, dismissing such proposals as “unethical." At a press briefing on Monday, Oct. 12, 2020, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said health officials typically aim to achieve herd immunity _ where the entire population is protected from a virus when the majority are immune _ by vaccination. Tedros noted that to obtain herd immunity from measles, for example, about 95% of the population must be vaccinated. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP, file) At a media briefing on Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said health officials typically aim to achieve herd immunity by vaccination. Tedros noted that to obtain herd immunity from a highly infectious disease such as measles, for example, about 95% of the population must be immunized. “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it,” he said. Some researchers have argued that allowing COVID-19 to spread in populations that are not obviously vulnerable will help build up herd immunity and is a more realistic way to stop the pandemic, instead of the restrictive lockdowns that have proved economically devastating. “Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak,” Tedros said. Tedros said that too little was known about immunity to COVID-19 to know if herd immunity is even achievable. “We have some clues, but we don’t have the complete picture,” he said, noting that WHO had documented instances of people becoming reinfected with coronavirus after recovering from an initial bout of the virus. Tedros said that while most people appear to develop some kind of immune response, it's unclear how long that lasts or how robust that protection is — and that different people have varying responses. “Allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical," he said. WHO estimates less than 10% of the population has any immunity to the coronavirus, meaning the vast majority of the world remains susceptible.
How about this: "Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, said little attention was paid to the infected population who were not sick enough to go to hospital during the early days of the crisis - which was 99 per cent of cases. He said it turned out that Covid-19 was not just a bad flu, but in many people it behaved more like an autoimmune disease, affecting multiple systems in the body. Prof Spector said an app introduced by King’s College London and the health-science company ZOE received data from more than four million people."
The President of the UK's Academy of Medical Scientists, Professor Sir Robert Lechler, has issued a statement demolishing the US sponsored Great Barrington manifesto on 'herd immunity' and infecting the mass of the UK population with #COVID19 https://no_short_urls_allowed/36NzCUb 1/4 https://acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/navigating-covid-19-through-the-volume-of-competing-voices Navigating COVID-19 through the volume of competing voices Friday 9th October 2020 Our President, Professor Sir Robert Lechler PMedSci, gives his views on the reality behind the perceived ‘scientific divide’ and the increasing volume of the ‘libertarian expert’. Earlier this week [Tuesday 6 October] a group of scientists published an open letter, the Great Barrington Declaration, arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’ of the vulnerable, while allowing for the rest of the population to operate as normal. None of us want to let the virus rule our lives, and I am acutely aware of the detrimental impacts that COVID-19 restrictions have on the nation’s mental health and economy, but this letter does not acknowledge that managing the virus is a near-impossible balancing act. It has gained a worrying amount of prominence and I am concerned about the public perception of what this document calls for. Below I address some of the main ideas put forward in the Declaration, and why they are untenable. The idea of selective protection of the elderly and vulnerable is unethical and simply not possible as there is no way to sustainably protect such a large group of people without imposing huge risks to their mental and physical health. Even if this were an option, and we were to shield the vulnerable from infection while letting the virus run through the rest of the population, we must remember that this virus is in no way benign for the young and fit. Yes, the elderly are significantly more likely to get seriously ill from the virus, but we have seen grave impacts across all age groups. We are also seeing an increase in cases of Long Covid, where people are suffering from persistent and enduring symptoms for months after COVID-19 infection, and we just don’t understand enough about this at the moment to even consider ‘Focused Protection’. On herd immunity, the current estimate of people who have been infected by the virus in the UK is around 8%. To get to herd immunity we would need around 70% of the population to have been infected with the virus. Not only are we a huge way off this but we now know that immunity to COVID-19 decreases over time, and that people can be re-infected with the virus. Our recent report on preparing for a challenging winter* highlighted the increased risk of coronavirus spreading when the weather is colder and people will be spending more time inside, which is likely to favour transmission of the virus. We are not far into autumn and we are already seeing a sharp increase in COVID-19 hospital admissions. When hospital beds and NHS time is taken over by care for COVID-19 patients, where do the heart attacks and cancer screenings go? We cannot stop the care for cancer, cardiac and all other patients, so we must reduce the number of COVID-19 cases to ease pressure on hospitals and allow vital routine care to continue as needed. Earlier this year when the Academy connected with older people and those who were asked to shield due to medical conditions, we heard how the pandemic had taken away their control of their lives, their care and their futures. For those in vulnerable groups the prospect of going outside, near people who may not abide by social distancing rules, was a major source of concern. Some wondered whether they might ever take public transport or visit town centres again. We cannot lock entire sectors of society away because others want to live their lives ‘as normal’. Neither should we expect younger or healthier people in the population to take a hit for herd immunity, especially when there is so much we are still to discover about the long term effects of COVID-19. We should not be making plans or decisions on how to control its spread behind closed doors in wood-panelled rooms. We must engage with people in the communities most affected to make sure that no decision about them is taken without their input. With COVID-19 being the biggest issue our society faces, it is easy for advice from credible experts to become politicised. Scientists bear a strong responsibility here and must work to ensure the public not only have access to the latest reliable evidence, but have been involved in how that evidence was produced. This is particularly true if the views they are sharing could be used to undermine public health measures. Extraordinary claims about COVID-19 measures should only be made with solid evidence and a large amount of certainty.
One more time, let's clear the notions properly: "Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization's technical lead for coronavirus response, said during a media briefing in Geneva last week that "herd immunity" is typically discussed in the context of vaccinations -- not as a response to a pandemic. "Normally when we talk about herd immunity, we talk about how much of the population needs to be vaccinated to have immunity to the virus, to the pathogen, so that transmission can no longer take place or it's very difficult for a virus or a pathogen to transmit between people," Van Kerkhove said. "If we think about herd immunity in the natural sense of just letting a virus run, it's very dangerous," she said. "That means that many people are infected, many people will need hospitalizations and many people will die." I put it to you once again: scientists, sadly, are frequently NOT properly trained in either Logic or Public Health Policy, many are almost autistic, if not sociopathic and can't see Human Beings past the numbers for love or money. They are frequently the most dangerous people, with such tunnel vision!!!
Well at least we have the comfort that we finaly know something reliable about corona = Things wont get better untill at least the end of next year ...... if all goes well ...... acording to the best most optimistic official predictions
Indeed, we must protect each other from each other for a while, 'till we get medicine(s), vaccine(s) and whatnot.... In the meantime, REALITY CHECK - the numbers are rising like nuts, if there are no stringent measures in place!!!! Covid-19 in the UK: How many coronavirus cases are there in your area? IMAGE COPYRIGHTGETTY IMAGES There have been nearly 700,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus so far in the UK and more than 40,000 people have died, government figures show. However, these figures include only people who have died within 28 days of testing positive for coronavirus and other measures suggest the number of deaths is higher.
>Indeed, we must protect each other from each other for a while, 'till we get medicine(s), vaccine(s) and whatnot.... Yep ...... I'm 100 % with you on that ...... just in case we have marshal law and the pigs come round or starving rampaging rioters ...... i went and bought myself a pick axe handle , some CS gas , a 500000 volt cattle prod and i've wired the front door knob to the 600 volt main house conection ...... and have a bucket of water next to the bedroom window in case the f**kers have rubber shoe soles
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54564448 - is this how you wanna "just do it", brainlessly and callously?!?
> is this how you wanna "just do it", brainlessly and callously?!? Stop talking crap . What evil arogant people . IF that reception becomes a hot spot the couple should be prosecuted for putting the general population in danger . Another posibility . Instead of this futile fight against evil-ution we should help it to seperate the wheat from the chaf ......and tell the population that we cant go on like this and we must get rid of the people causing problems . The morons . To do that we'ill stop all law enforcement and rules . That will mean that we might have a rough ride for a short time but we will solve the problem . The morons will go to weding receptions / not wear masks / go to the beach ........ and infect eachother and die . The more intelligent ones will wear masks , do social distancing and not die .
LoL, who ever is already trained on something that never had become real to that great amount???...on a pandemic simulator or what? But...it actually doesn't matter. (I am not in the responsibility to public health policy.) I can freely say how I evaluate..and we'll see if my evaluation on a future vaccine (that it will IMHO not contribute to overcome the pandemic) and anything at post #1229 will unveil as some future truth...or not. And Tedros....."too little was known about immunity...." yeah sure but to him. Maybe he should overcome his laziness and should make the efforts to read the studies! (If he's capable to understand their contents at all). Besides of that...what's the use of being trained as you propagate if the decisions that are made are actually useless yes even prevailed by disadvantages... For instance.... Argentina. The nation with most restrictive rules continuously from March until today. But have a look where they are! The now pronounced compulsory vaccination won't help them either! The 'trained ones' do underestimate the number of infections (yes underestimate) in that way that they still think measures applied by humans can have a great impact on how the pandemic is turning out concerning numbers of infections... But they do overestimate the sense of purpose of counting them. No we cannot do that much to get down the number of infections when a raise starts rolling -as shown in Argentina- But we can make sure we always have enough medical capacities and wait for a medicine. The number of infections does not behave according to restrictions and it is no suitable value to determine the state of the pandemic. If there's a 'saviour', then it is the good result of seroprevalence and contrary to a vaccine it is there already.