Is Coronavirus as serious as they say?

12 on the slack said:
Pitting people against each other, making fun of people’s user names … all signs of a superior intellect!
Click to expand...
No, just a bit of fun on my part. You have clearly shown your superior intellect by having chosen a user name that presumably came from Sid the Sexist. Or are you compensating in some way?
 
Radis Noir said:
Personalising it doesn't really help. If there had been no lockdown or restrictions and coronavirus had been allowed to spread unchecked, the health service would have been overwhelmed. This itself would have led to even more collateral deaths. One of the main reasons for the lockdown was to slow the infection rate such that the health service would be able to cope with the strain.
You seem to be arguing that some deaths are more acceptable than others. Are you arguing that a lot of deaths amongst the elderly is a price worth paying to minimise deaths amongst younger people? If so, what's the acceptable ratio? 10 elderly to die to save one younger person? 100? 1000?
Click to expand...
i dont think it's ever okay for government to say "okay, we're going to enact these creepy weird unnatural measures and yes, some--possibly a lot--of young people will die because of it who wouldnt have otherwise died". it's not a numbers game. the response should have been "okay the vulnerable people can be protected and everyone else can get on with their lives". possibly the people who died from covid would've died from it anyway or died from the flu. there's no proof that lockdown or masks or any of these dumb measures actually saved any lives. but there is proof that they directly cost lives. im in favour of nature doing it's thing and government not politicizing medicine.

i understand the reason they gave for the first lockdown and i know a lot of people (who dont support the second lockdown) supported the first lockdown for that very reason. but the hospital system wasnt overwhelmed at any point. and continues not to be overwhelmed. so then if that was the reason for the first lockdown. what was the reason for the second?

and im sorry if personalizing it doesnt help, but you better believe it's gonna be personal for people who have lost someone to cancer or suicide or will lose someone because of the lockdowns. there's gonna be a lot of these people, just you wait.
 
12 on the slack said:
I love how you always backtrack - from "someone with cancer" to "yeah, there are thousands" and then "yeah but we don't know how many" to "but the numbers are small compared to coronavirus deaths".

There are scenarios and prognoses from official government sources - and they conclude that collateral deaths will outweigh coronavirus deaths. Funny how these sources are relevant and reliable when they suit your argument and how they have no bearing when they don't. I repeat my assertion that your argument is piss poor and that no amount of insults and downvotes can change that.
Click to expand...
You are alluding to sources that are full of the word 'could.' The reports say 'could' not 'will.'
Anyone politician with responsibility for public health in this pandemic is going to prioritise the immediate and the local over the distant and possible - to do otherwise would be madness.
You don't know how many collateral deaths there have been or how many there will be over the coming years. Should we be allowing people in the UK to die so that people in other continents might at some point in the future not die? If you are, good luck with selling that one as public policy. If not then what?
 
Radis Noir said:
You are alluding to sources that are full of the word 'could.' The reports say 'could' not 'will.'
Anyone politician with responsibility for public health in this pandemic is going to prioritise the immediate and the local over the distant and possible - to do otherwise would be madness.
You don't know how many collateral deaths there have been or how many there will be over the coming years. Should we be allowing people in the UK to die so that people in other continents might at some point in the future not die? If you are, good luck with selling that one as public policy. If not then what?
Click to expand...
uh no, sorry. to shut down cancer screening is madness.

what about flu epidemics that happen every year? do you think it's a good idea from now on to lockdown and wear masks because of the flu now too, since it's an "immediate and local" threat??
 
rifke said:
uh no, sorry. to shut down cancer screening is madness.

what about flu epidemics that happen every year? do you think it's a good idea from now on to lockdown and wear masks because of the flu now too, since it's an "immediate and local" threat??
Click to expand...
Influenza is nowhere near as virulent and deadly as coronavirus. But wearing a mask isn't a bad idea if you are worried about catching it. Plenty of people in the world wear masks as a matter of course as you would notice if you ever went to the Far East.
 
Radis Noir said:
Influenza is nowhere near as virulent and deadly as coronavirus. But wearing a mask isn't a bad idea if you are worried about catching it. Plenty of people in the world wear masks as a matter of course as you would notice if you ever went to the Far East.
Click to expand...
why did the WHO up until this year reject the wearing of face masks as not-effective then, if they're a good idea? i understand that now some study has come along saying that "masks catch droplets" or whatever dumb thing you said, but i mean, you would THINK that if they were truly effective in stopping the spread of virus that in forty years during which the science was "masks are not effective" they would've figured that out, since "masks catch droplets" doesnt sound like a particularly ingenious idea that must have taken some 21st century science to discover. i mean, it sounds rather more like "science" that is being fed to a gullible and unquestioning public.
 
rifke said:
why did the WHO up until this year reject the wearing of face masks as not-effective then, if they're a good idea? i understand that now some study has come along saying that "masks catch droplets" or whatever dumb thing you said, but i mean, you would THINK that if they were truly effective in stopping the spread of virus that in forty years during which the science was "masks are not effective" they would've figured that out, since "masks catch droplets" doesnt sound like a particularly ingenious idea that must have taken some 21st century science to discover. i mean, it sounds rather more like "science" that is being fed to a gullible and unquestioning public.
Click to expand...
"The organization had previously said there wasn’t enough medical evidence to support members of the public wearing a mask, unless they were sick or around people with the coronavirus. The widespread wearing of masks might lead to a mask shortage for medical workers and create a false sense of security in the public, WHO officials had said.

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, speaking Friday during a media briefing in Geneva, said WHO’s stance was based on new research."

www.webmd.com

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.
www.webmd.com www.webmd.com
 
Radis Noir said:
"The organization had previously said there wasn’t enough medical evidence to support members of the public wearing a mask, unless they were sick or around people with the coronavirus. The widespread wearing of masks might lead to a mask shortage for medical workers and create a false sense of security in the public, WHO officials had said.

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, speaking Friday during a media briefing in Geneva, said WHO’s stance was based on new research."

www.webmd.com

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.
www.webmd.com www.webmd.com
Click to expand...
i guess they were just slacking and disseminating false information for all those forty years when they maintained masks were not effective then
 
rifke said:
i guess they were just slacking and disseminating false information for all those forty years when they maintained masks were not effective then
Click to expand...
Coronavirus hasn't been around for forty years so what are you talking about?
 
Radis Noir said:
Coronavirus hasn't been around for forty years so what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
respiratory illness. they have maintained for forty years that masks were not effective in stopping the spread of respiratory illness. they have never recommended them for influenza, for sars, for anything like that. they maintained that in the case of an epidemic they would not be effective and would not be recommended. im not talking about them changing their stance from the beginning of coronavirus until now. im talking about them changing their forty year stance on masks over coronavirus.
 
rifke said:
respiratory illness. they have maintained for forty years that masks were not effective in stopping the spread of respiratory illness. they have never recommended them for influenza, for sars, for anything like that. they maintained that in the case of an epidemic they would not be effective and would not be recommended. im not talking about them changing their stance from the beginning of coronavirus until now. im talking about them changing their forty year stance on masks over coronavirus.
Click to expand...
Because science evolves and changes. Plus CV is a unique event in the last forty years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
OpenAI launches free ChatGPT app for iOS - As accurate as Trump’s brain
Replies
0
Views
592
Anonymous
A
A
The Guardian: @ The Music Industry: “it’s absolutely crazy to treat people as if they are disposable”
Replies
0
Views
1K
Anonymous
A
A
They Think It’s All Over - Series 8: Episode 8 (Christmas 1999)
Replies
0
Views
532
Anonymous
A
A
What do you identify as?
Replies
19
Views
2K
nicky wire's legs
nicky wire's legs
Packof20No10s
They seek him here
Replies
16
Views
1K
Packof20No10s
Packof20No10s
Back
Top Bottom