Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?


Recommended Posts

Don't worry our chief medical officer Vallance will rescue us with a vaccine when the time is right, probably just before his share option in Glaxo comes to fruition in April (no conflict of interest whatsoever)  just a hunch :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Peter Hun

    2344

  • Grayphil

    1925

  • Confusion of VIs

    1645

  • The Preacherman

    1348

 

Don't worry our chief medical officer Vallance will rescue us with a vaccine when the time is right, probably just before his share option in Glaxo comes to fruition in April (no conflict of interest whatsoever)  just a hunch :)

Silence, peasant!  How dare you cast aspersions on your beknighted betters. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8766531/Chief-Scientific-Officer-Sir-Patrick-Vallance-600-000-shares-vaccine-maker-GSK.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

You are right.. I've said since the start that the lockdown is a teribble idea.. As for graspibg the nettle.. This is mail I sent to my MP yesterday.. I wrote it whilst on the toilet, and didnt think about it enough.. But at least I actually wrote 

 

 

Peter Dowds

 
Good morning, this is the first time I have ever felt it necessary to write to my MP. 
 
I understand that you will be voting on the coronavirus act, and I urge not to pass this bill, as its handing far too much power to a clutch of hysterical epidemiologists. 
 
If this crisis has taught us anything, it's that the predictive powers of the science of epidemiology should be lent the same weight as astrology, for determining future courses of action. Im sure you are familiar with Prof. Fergusons other failed predictions,  in 2001 he also put my family out of business with the foot and mouth crisis he got so  badly wrong, as well as Swine Flu and Avian Influenza. 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx I left out as it has some personal details about my particular position  xxxxxxx
 
However through the draconian rules emposed by this government, I lost my job with no furlough, and found myself locked down in isolation. 
 
But I wrote to you, as the government is making up rules as they go along. 4.5% of infections occurred through hospitality venues only.. Yes more rules have been forced through with no basis in Science. The supposed reason for the curfew was Belgium (where the cases are rising again, showing it doesn't work.) 
 
This will cost more jobs, on the run up to winter.. This will cause many many other problems. 
 
The data is in and the Swedish method is the one we should have followed from the start. 
 
The current path will kill more than it cures.. 
 
Sorry for the rant, but enough is enough for a disease that has a very low IFR. And the average age of death Is 82. Not to mention the story of the face positives from the Pcr tests which will be a huge scandal in the weeks and months to come
 
 
This needs to stop. It is complete madness. We need to get back to work as a country in fullness and Children need to be in education full time. 
 
Many thanks for your time, and attention
 
My name and adress
 
 

Complete and utter bull excrement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Nightclubs and large events were closed. Any many businesses were operating at a loss because of restrictions. However, we are in a worse situation now as with decided to screw over the hospitality industry. 

No we are in a worse situation now because bed-wetters like yourself and seaman phil refuse to wear a mask out of any decency and respect for others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I have a very simple solution. Open everything up. Present the facts to those most at risk and let them decide if they want to shield. Regular testing for residential care and the staff. And also regular testing in hospitals. 

 Is there any level of infection, hospitalisation or deaths where you would draw the line, at and rethink lockdown, or would you go 'do nothing' until it burned itself out?

 If there is a threshold, what is it and how far in advance of the curve do we need to be to attempt to steer it's course?

 Many vulnerable people and kids do not have the mental capacity to consent or deny containment measures, so difficulties too with the principle of personal choices over health risks management.

Second bit is the norm already, weekly pillar 1 testing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 Is there any level of infection, hospitalisation or deaths where you would draw the line, at and rethink lockdown, or would you go 'do nothing' until it burned itself out?

 If there is a threshold, what is it and how far in advance of the curve do we need to be to attempt to steer it's course?

 Many vulnerable people and kids do not have the mental capacity to consent or deny containment measures, so difficulties too with the principle of personal choices over health risks management.

Second bit is the norm already, weekly pillar 1 testing. 

"How many / is there a level at which..." tends to be a leading question and attack rather than a useful contribution to a discussion (which are usually more about general principles). Those asking it, particularly without existing examples they can point at and say "that seems to do the job" or "that's not up to it," would do no better on positions they hold (you can usually turn it on its head easily enough). We can see this in that most people wouldn't agree with restrictions for ordinary seasonal flu but certainly would for the Black Death (well I think plague's treatable these days but you get the idea).

If you're responsible for a vulnerable person who is unable to look after themselves you're effectively in that category yourself as far as this is concerned, it doesn't change the general principle that you should be responsible for your own health, where to draw the line (which is rarely at either extreme) rather than expect everyone else to look after you so you don't have to.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

This is worryingly happening by stealth my son's swim school has announced that parents need to check in on the track and trace app. We have no intention of downloading the app and I suspect most will ignore. 

Many will ignore it or refuse to visit places where have to use it......like car parks where require a phone to pay to park.......all about tracking and tracing the population.....up to us whether we play the game.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

You've hit the nail on the head. We need to be very clear that if we don't get back to normal the economic damage is unquantifiable. 

We also need to be very clear that Covid containment measures are causing massive social problems and damaging health care outcomes for other diseases. 

 

The economic and social damage is already pretty massive, even if The Coronavirus magically vanished right now and all the various measures around it disappeared.

I can only conclude that governments are keen to cement their newfound control over their populations for the turbulent socio-economic problems lying ahead as reality bites.  The chances of zooming out of this mess with a debt-fuelled 'recovery' are falling away fast, if they ever existed.

Aside from the healthcare impact for other diseases so far, a prolonged economic slump will invariably hit the money available for healthcare going forwards so probably a lower standard of healthcare.  There will also be a slew of problems stemming from mass unemployment and poverty, both physical and mental putting increased demands on the healthcare system.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

"How many / is there a level at which..." tends to be a leading question and attack rather than a useful contribution to a discussion (which are usually more about general principles).

For a practical policy these things need to be considered.

 

Those asking it, particularly without existing examples they can point at and say "that seems to do the job" or "that's not up to it," would do no better on positions they hold (you can usually turn it on its head easily enough).

I am all for such examples, but you need to know what you are aiming to achieve.

 

We can see this in that most people wouldn't agree with restrictions for ordinary seasonal flu but certainly would for the Black Death (well I think plague's treatable these days but you get the idea).

Indeed. So what is the right option and how do we achieve it in a way that takes into account an end result that people want without throwing groups that might be in a minority under the metaphorical bus?

 

If you're responsible for a vulnerable person who is unable to look after themselves you're effectively in that category yourself as far as this is concerned, it doesn't change the general principle that you should be responsible for your own health, where to draw the line (which is rarely at either extreme) rather than expect everyone else to look after you so you don't have to.

There's a balance to be struck. We don't tolerate people dumping their faeces in the street because it is a general health hazard, but you could choose to allow it and say that anyone who catches cholera from it should have just been more careful. I don't think that would be appropriate and so we need an appropriate balance.  But what is that balance? How many people are an acceptable loss? What are the tradeoffs? What are the risks of any particular strategy given the current level of uncertainty of the effects of the virus, length of time that you are immune for? Should we take a precautionary principle or a more risky one that may make things worse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Expect to see aot more about your post.. There are over 20 T cell studies, confirming that up to 90% of people are not in danger of Covid death.. 

 

I will try to find link on a bit.. But breaking news. And the CDC and Fauci have beem called out on air in the US.. 

But I'm off to the gym... Cos health starts at home.. 

And you are also wrong.. Time to change the tune and leave the kids alone. 

Fauci doesn't appear to recognise that T-Cell immunity is a thing.  When he was having a go at Rand Paul who pointed out that New York is functionally immune as an area, he clearly stated  that you would need more than the 20% antibody seroprevalence for herd immunity, indicating that he's not factoring in T-Cell immunity at all and relying entirely on the presence of antibodies to show who has been infected and fought off the disease.

But then again, it took him months to tell the public that Vitamin D was a useful thing to help protect against the virus despite taking a rather large daily dose of it himself .....

Once this is over and done I think a lot of dirty linen is going to come out over vested interests at play in the various responses to the virus and profiteering by big pharma interests.  By then of course, most of the culprits will be rich as Croesus on cash from governments paying out for doses of vaccine for entire populations.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

For a practical policy these things need to be considered.

Sure, but we're not the ones setting the practical policy, which requires a lot of time digging through lots of numbers (or should do). Demanding that as part of a general discussion is almost always just an attempt at dismissing rather than addressing someone's position, a dishonest "debating" technique.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

There's a balance to be struck. We don't tolerate people dumping their faeces in the street because it is a general health hazard, but you could choose to allow it and say that anyone who catches cholera from it should have just been more careful. I don't think that would be appropriate and so we need an appropriate balance.

I certainly won't be 'going to San Francisco' any time soon .......  

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/12/26/heres-how-bad-san-franciscos-poop-problem-got-in-2019/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Nightclubs and large events were closed. Any many businesses were operating at a loss because of restrictions. However, we are in a worse situation now as with decided to screw over the hospitality industry. 

You had your chance, screwed it up and now we have a second lockdown. Tough shit really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Sure, but we're not the ones setting the practical policy, which requires a lot of time digging through lots of numbers (or should do). Demanding that as part of a general discussion is almost always just an attempt at dismissing rather than addressing someone's position, a dishonest "debating" technique.

 Not asking for a 50 page report, just a general idea, acceptable deathtolls that would balance no restrictions. Difficult questions to answer, not dishonest debating tactics.

 I'm the one unsure and uncertain, you claim to know better on this but when pressed on the vital prime mover of your own argument you get all dizzy. 

  My offer was 1.0 Megadeath over 50's for 'do nothing', probably much more later in 'negotiations'.  

 

"How many / is there a level at which..." tends to be a leading question and attack rather than a useful contribution to a discussion (which are usually more about general principles). Those asking it, particularly without existing examples they can point at and say "...

If you're responsible for a vulnerable person who is unable to look after themselves you're effectively in that category yourself as far as this is concerned, it doesn't change the general principle that you should be responsible for your own health, where to draw the line (which is rarely at either extreme) rather than expect everyone else to look after you so you don't have to.

 2nd point is valid, but it does increases the burden to any of those guardians of minors/incapable decision making decisions for others above one's own biased risk acceptability.

 The 'do nothing' approach actually is not half a simple as it seems when really examining the idea even at a cursory level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 Not asking for a 50 page report, just a general idea, acceptable deathtolls that would balance no restrictions. Difficult questions to answer, not dishonest debating tactics.

 I'm the one unsure and uncertain, you claim to know better on this but when pressed on the vital prime mover of your own argument you get all dizzy.

Nope, I'm just pointing out that that is a dishonest question, and why. I wasn't even the person you were replying to when you asked that question in the first place. Not accepting your loaded question is not getting dizzy.

It also gets things the wrong way around really. "How many people..." - does it matter? Double the number of people involved in something and the number who'll fall foul of a risk doubles, but the risk to any individual does not, and that's really the one that matters - what is the risk to an individual? And for that you have to be presented with a scenario and be asked "are you happy with that risk to yourself, if you were in that position?" and see how it works out.

Calling it "dizzy" for not being over-simple, sorry, you're resorting to trying to attack the person rather than the argument again.

"2nd point is valid, but it does increases the burden to any of those guardians of minors/incapable decision making decisions for others above one's own biased risk acceptability.

 The 'do nothing' approach actually is not half a simple as it seems when really examining the idea even at a cursory level."

(can't find the quote another block stuff any more)

I never said "do nothing" - don't head in to only one extreme or the other territory.

Yes, there is an additional burden on guardians. That's life for you. Not sure why you say your own biased risk acceptability though.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That is the plan/hope, chance of success probably +50%

Better than Plan B, the give up option which accepts failure and will have just as bad economic impact.

Is there a plan C.

If Patrick Vallance has that huge numbers of shares in GSK you can see how this now looks more distorted than the dodgy dossier in 2003.  Plan C is get a grip on the infections numbers and their collation properly (which is currently not happening) and those in gov get their heads clear & straight and not worry if they upset SAGE and their estimates that arent estimates.

Incidentally the track&trace spy app is being promoted and McDs (maybe others too) are requiring it.... the evidence you wanted there of its potential to become the app that bars you from a place if you haven't complied and all based on a test with major accuracy concerns!

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Sick children to be turned away from two major London A&Es to make way for Covid patients

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/london-hospitals-sick-children-turned-away-covid-patients-a4555011.html

But children are immune to covid and therefore also immune to any knock on effect to health due to being unable to access healthcare as the NHS is overstretched. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nightowl said:

If Patrick Vallance has that huge numbers of shares in GSK you can see how this now looks more distorted than the dodgy dossier in 2003.  Plan C is get a grip on the infections numbers and their collation properly (which is currently not happening) and those in gov get their heads clear & straight and not worry if they upset SAGE and their estimates that arent estimates.

Incidentally the track&trace spy app is being promoted and McDs (maybe others too) are requiring it.... the evidence you wanted there of its potential to become the app that bars you from a place if you haven't complied and all based on a test with major accuracy concerns!

Aren't all businesses required to advertise the "NHS" tracing app?

Are they allowed to serve people who don't have smartphones?

@Arpeggio have you got the app?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Aren't all businesses required to advertise the "NHS" tracing app?

Are they allowed to serve people who don't have smartphones?

@Arpeggio have you got the app?

I have only seen a couple of places with the huge 2D barcode at the door but even if they aren't required they will be bullied into it somehow no doubt.  For now they will serve people with basic phones but eventually it might be required. If you have bluetooth on and you leave it on your battery will die and the whole app is useless anyway.

I do wonder how long it will be before 'fake' or cracked versions will crop up for Android phones though although maybe not on Playstore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-vaccines-with-minor-side-effects-could-still-be-pretty-bad/

"Close to 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and just over one-fourth developed moderate or severe muscle aches. That’s a lot, in a young and healthy group of people—and the acetaminophen didn’t help much for most of those problems."

So if this (liability free) vaccine were given to over 80 year olds maybe it will kill them......and if given to everyone else and their children, there might be side effects (e.g. Pandemrix > narcolepsy) for a vaccine against something that would be asymptomatic for most, or mild.

seems_legit_part_2_640_25.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Edited by Arpeggio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 440 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.