Confusion of VIs Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 6 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: And if that cost is borne by the individual, not the state, as discussed above? Not the case in the UK, also ignores consideration of whether someone unable to perform a rational risk assessment of something as simple as wearing a seatbelt should be trusted with a driving licence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said: Not the case in the UK, also ignores consideration of whether someone unable to perform a rational risk assessment of something as simple as wearing a seatbelt should be trusted with a driving licence. As discussed in the posts following....... https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/235722-coronavirus-potential-black-swan/&do=findComment&comment=1103687171 This was my last post on the subject discussed...Indeed and having signed the requisite document to allow them not to wear a seatbelt, they would receive a bill for their treatment. I doubt that many would sign such a document, I certainly wouldn't, but the choice is there and removes the element of compulsion. Edited January 22, 2021 by Bruce Banner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) Just now, Confusion of VIs said: Not the case in the UK, also ignores consideration of whether someone unable to perform a rational risk assessment of something as simple as wearing a seatbelt should be trusted with a driving licence. So, historically going all the way back to the very first driving licence, ALL drivers who didn't voluntarily wear a seatbelt, before it became compulsory to do so, should not have been allowed to drive? Edited January 22, 2021 by anonguest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said: How does Sweden's current situation compare with UK's? Much much worse. Sweden has done about 10 times worse than its neighbours, we are only about 50% worse than ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 minute ago, anonguest said: So, historically going back to the very first driving licence, ALL drivers who didn't voluntarily wear a seatbelt, before it became compulsory to do so, should not have been allowed to drive? Different world, seat belts much less effective and a pain to use also lots of people believed that leaving the scene of the accident via the windscreen was some sort of safe exit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) Just now, Confusion of VIs said: Different world, seat belts much less effective Really?! Citations please. and a pain to use Again, really?! Even as a kid I don't recall my grandads cars having seatbelts any bit significantly different from those we use today (and he made me and my siblings wear them - with us seated in the back!) also lots of people believed that leaving the scene of the accident via the windscreen was some sort of safe exit. Oh complete rubbish! I'm sure anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together back then would have known that going through a windscreen was pretty much 'game over'. Edited January 22, 2021 by anonguest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said: So they're doing better than us. Yep: #21 in the table on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country Sweden - 106 per 100k UK - 140 per 100k (closest death rates to Sweden - France at 107, Switzerland at 105) So, clearly their policy compared to all those other countries that did lock down has been disastrous 🙄 Notable how many of the top death rates are in 'developed' countries with supposedly super healthcare systems. India (not exactly fabled for having great healthcare available to the masses and with some incredibly high density and impoverished areas) doing incredibly well with a rate of 10 per 100k - but then they did implement both HCQ and Ivermectin for prophylaxis and early treatment. In most Western countries it's "lock yourself in the house and if you're still sick in ten days call the ambulance". Hardly surprising that so many cases end up being serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Watching this evening's No10 press conference and reading between the lines, I get the impression that take-up of the vaccine has been low, and although they don't want to admit it, they are really worried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguel Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: Watching this evening's No10 press conference and reading between the lines, I get the impression that take-up of the vaccine has been low, and although they don't want to admit it, they are really worried. I think they are more worried about the variants, increase in transmission and them being more deadly. how effective are the vaccines against them. Where's Grayphil when you need an expert? but at least it's good to know that fckin bleeding HCQ is going to save us all. Edited January 22, 2021 by miguel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, miguel said: I think they are more worried about the variants, increase in transmission and them being more deadly. how effective are the vaccines against them. Where's Grayphil when you need an expert? but at least it's good to know that fckin bleeding HCQ is going to save us all. The variants or mutations, now and possibly in the future are a concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ticket2ride Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, miguel said: I think they are more worried about the variants, increase in transmission and them being more deadly. how effective are the vaccines against them. Where's Grayphil when you need an expert? but at least it's good to know that fckin bleeding HCQ is going to save us all. Pesto says new variant "may be a bit more lethal". Don't want to scare the masses, Pesto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 42 minutes ago, Sour Mash said: Notable how many of the top death rates are in 'developed' countries with supposedly super healthcare systems. India (not exactly fabled for having great healthcare available to the masses and with some incredibly high density and impoverished areas) doing incredibly well with a rate of 10 per 100k - but then they did implement both HCQ and Ivermectin for prophylaxis and early treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguel Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 3 minutes ago, ticket2ride said: Pesto says new variant "may be a bit more lethal". Don't want to scare the masses, Pesto. A bit more lethal and more transmissable. Not great for hospitals. That's for the Kent variant, we wait to see what the others are like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 16 minutes ago, miguel said: I think they are more worried about the variants, increase in transmission and them being more deadly. Where's Grayphil when you need an expert? but at least it's good to know that fckin bleeding HCQ is going to save us all. You may be right but I picked up on BJ's plea that everyone who is offered the vaccine should take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ticket2ride Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 minute ago, miguel said: A bit more lethal and more transmissable. Not great for hospitals. That's for the Kent variant, we wait to see what the others are like. I'm currently WFH but have colleagues who are desperate to get back in and trying to find reasons why we should all go in. Mentalists. 🤯 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Sour Mash said: Yep: #21 in the table on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country Sweden - 106 per 100k UK - 140 per 100k (closest death rates to Sweden - France at 107, Switzerland at 105) So, clearly their policy compared to all those other countries that did lock down has been disastrous 🙄 Notable how many of the top death rates are in 'developed' countries with supposedly super healthcare systems. India (not exactly fabled for having great healthcare available to the masses and with some incredibly high density and impoverished areas) doing incredibly well with a rate of 10 per 100k - but then they did implement both HCQ and Ivermectin for prophylaxis and early treatment. In most Western countries it's "lock yourself in the house and if you're still sick in ten days call the ambulance". Hardly surprising that so many cases end up being serious. The countries at the bottom of the table look very familiar. Wonder what their secret is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarky Cat Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Sour Mash said: Yep: #21 in the table on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country Sweden - 106 per 100k UK - 140 per 100k (closest death rates to Sweden - France at 107, Switzerland at 105) So, clearly their policy compared to all those other countries that did lock down has been disastrous 🙄 Notable how many of the top death rates are in 'developed' countries with supposedly super healthcare systems. India (not exactly fabled for having great healthcare available to the masses and with some incredibly high density and impoverished areas) doing incredibly well with a rate of 10 per 100k - but then they did implement both HCQ and Ivermectin for prophylaxis and early treatment. In most Western countries it's "lock yourself in the house and if you're still sick in ten days call the ambulance". Hardly surprising that so many cases end up being serious. Correlation doesn't equal causation 1% of Indian women and men are over 80. In the UK it's 8% of women and 4% of men 3.9% of the Indian population is obese but 27.8% of the UK population is Given age is the main factor, and obesity an important secondary factor, is that not the more likely explanation than 2 unproven treatments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 40 minutes ago, miguel said: A bit more lethal and more transmissable. Not great for hospitals. That's for the Kent variant, we wait to see what the others are like. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-uk-variant-may-be-30-per-cent-more-deadly/?utm_campaign=onesignal&utm_medium=alert&utm_source=editorial About 30% more deadly. BUT the question, for many I am sure, will be is that 'across the board' age wise? or, still, heavily biased towards the more elderly demographics? Where this thing becomes truly dangeorus is IF it ever starts to increae in lethality for younger demographics - that is when the truly destructive/damaging socio-economic impact could occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said: Correlation doesn't equal causation 1% of Indian women and men are over 80. In the UK it's 8% of women and 4% of men Life expectancy for India is slightly under 70. In the UK where it is 80+ some areas of the UK it is as low as 64. The standard deviation from average age of death in the UK would be interesting, and India. 7 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said: 3.9% of the Indian population is obese but 27.8% of the UK population is Given age is the main factor, and obesity an important secondary factor, is that not the more likely explanation than 2 unproven treatments? Definitely obesity something to do with it. 27.8% is very high. Countries with low obesity have consistently and noticeably done better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 All back to normality in Wuhan on the streets and in the nightclubs. Well done to them. They sacrificed for the good of each other. No pathetic bed-wetters there moaning about wearing a mask or locking down during a pandemic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, ticket2ride said: I'm currently WFH but have colleagues who are desperate to get back in and trying to find reasons why we should all go in. Mentalists. 🤯 Is their office covid secure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Arpeggio said: Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19: a tale of populism and obscurantism We read with interest the article by Estella Ektorp, which describes the death threats received by Marcus Lacerda following a trial on chloroquine for COVID-19 in Brazil. We give Lacerda our full support and herein report our experience in France and Switzerland following publication of a meta-analysis On hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, for COVID-19 The meta-analysis included 11 932 participants treated with hydroxychloroquine, 8081 with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, and 12 930 patients in a control group. Hydroxychloroquine was not significantly associated with mortality: pooled relative risk (RR) was 0·83 (95% CI 0·65–1·06) across all 17 studies and 1·09 (0·97–1·24) across three randomised controlled trials. Hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was associated with increased mortality (RR 1·27, 95% CI 1·04–1·54; seven studies). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Just now, MonsieurCopperCrutch said: All back to normality in Wuhan on the streets and in the nightclubs. Well done to them. They sacrificed for the good of each other. No pathetic bed-wetters there moaning about wearing a mask or locking down during a pandemic. That's not what I recall seeing last year. People being forcibly locked into their apartments, etc. Hardly indicative of a voluntary spirit of sacrifice by the people! Plus, with news of outbreaks again threatening to reach Beijing, apparently, and new lockdowns in force I'd say it's a bit too soon to be claiming victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 27 minutes ago, anonguest said: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-uk-variant-may-be-30-per-cent-more-deadly/?utm_campaign=onesignal&utm_medium=alert&utm_source=editorial About 30% more deadly. BUT the question, for many I am sure, will be is that 'across the board' age wise? or, still, heavily biased towards the more elderly demographics? Where this thing becomes truly dangeorus is IF it ever starts to increae in lethality for younger demographics - that is when the truly destructive/damaging socio-economic impact could occur. In my wife's Trust the average age of the ICU patients dropped from around 65 in the first wave to under 60 now. This could indicate the new variant produces more severe effects in younger patients or maybe just a change in the profile of those at risk. It probably does explain why the new treatments haven't produced the expected improvement in mortality rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Just now, Confusion of VIs said: In my wife's Trust the average age of the ICU patients dropped from around 65 in the first wave to under 60 now. This could indicate the new variant produces more severe effects in younger patients or maybe just a change in the profile of those at risk. It probably does explain why the new treatments haven't produced the expected improvement in mortality rates. I keep meaning to access again the official stats that give the breakdown of deaths by age group. Last time i checked/downloaded the excel data was early november. Just gotta find it again - as I didn't bookmark the webpage. 😞 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.