The Lemon Fool

redsturgeon wrote:Both these two guys were described as "cast iron constitution" and "strong as an ox"

They obviously got it from somewhere or someone. I wonder what precautions, if any, they were taking?

And do we know for sure that they had no unreported health conditions?

I fear that paranoia is the biggest enemy.

TJH

redsturgeon wrote:I'd be interested in your thoughts of the method by which the NHS can "identify where people have a weak immune system and assist them in strengthening it".

Obviously it is possible to check vitamin D levels as that is already done. Not, however, a systematically as may be advised. Someone can be physically strong and have a strong cardiovascular system, but a weak immune system.

tjh290633 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:Both these two guys were described as "cast iron constitution" and "strong as an ox"

They obviously got it from somewhere or someone. I wonder what precautions, if any, they were taking?

And do we know for sure that they had no unreported health conditions?

I fear that paranoia is the biggest enemy.

TJH

Yes they clearly got it from somewhere, both were business owners and returned to work as soon as they could to put food on the table for their families and keep their staff employed.

They clearly were not taking enough precautions to avoid getting the disease. That is a very salient point but I remember in recent weeks the country being encouraged to both go back to work if at all possible and to eat out to help out. Were either of these two messages encouraging us to take every precaution we could to avoid catch Covid?

Did they have underlying health conditions? I can't be sure but why do we keep needing to push this idea that if you are healthy then you will be OK? Is that really true? That line reminds me of the people who get cancer when they were as fit as a fiddle, vegans, who never smoked or drank. Seems that it may be comforting to think of disease as only happening to people who somehow deserve it.

Paranoia is not usually useful, but to suggest that it is a bigger problem than the disease that has killed 45,000 and counting in this country, seems to be overstating the case. If someone is paranoid enough to socially distance, wash their hands frequently and wear a mask when mixing with others then it may actually be of benefit to them.

BTW I am not suggesting that I am that person. I travelled abroad in August and ate out in restaurants when the numbers were low (usually outside). I only wear a mask wear it is mandated and have met friends in pub gardens for drinks. Now the numbers are rising I am again limiting social contacts and if we go into lockdown I will follow guidelines.

Keep safe everyone.

John

redsturgeon wrote:Paranoia is not usually useful, but to suggest that it is a bigger problem than the disease that has killed 45,000 and counting in this country, seems to be overstating the case.

Does it? Over 10,000 people per week die in the UK. That's normal.

The current rate of death is about normal for the time of year.

It was about twice normal in April. And it has declined to about 20% over normal since then. With each week that passes the excess death ratio shrinks.

The fear is that April will return, and that's now bordering on paranoia.

NeilW wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:Paranoia is not usually useful, but to suggest that it is a bigger problem than the disease that has killed 45,000 and counting in this country, seems to be overstating the case.

Does it? Over 10,000 people per week die in the UK. That's normal.

The current rate of death is about normal for the time of year.

It was about twice normal in April. And it has declined to about 20% over normal since then. With each week that passes the excess death ratio shrinks.

The fear is that April will return, and that's now bordering on paranoia.

Tell that to the relatives of the more than 1000 people registered as dying from Covid in the past two weeks. Or the relatives of the 367 Covid dead reported on Oct 27th.

John

I am genuinely trying to understand in what way "being paranoid" is affecting the pandemic response in a negative way. Could someone please explain that to me.

From what I have seen over the past few months it is complacency rather than paranoia that has brought us to where we find ourselves now.

John

redsturgeon wrote:I am genuinely trying to understand in what way "being paranoid" is affecting the pandemic response in a negative way. Could someone please explain that to me.

From what I have seen over the past few months it is complacency rather than paranoia that has brought us to where we find ourselves now.

Although I don't think being abusive assists in discussing issues more generally I do think there is good evidence that the actions of the lockdown prevented the disease spreading more widely during the summer which is resulting in more people dying from the disease at the moment.

NeilW wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:Paranoia is not usually useful, but to suggest that it is a bigger problem than the disease that has killed 45,000 and counting in this country, seems to be overstating the case.

Does it? Over 10,000 people per week die in the UK. That's normal.

The current rate of death is about normal for the time of year.

It was about twice normal in April. And it has declined to about 20% over normal since then. With each week that passes the excess death ratio shrinks.

The fear is that April will return, and that's now bordering on paranoia.

If I am going out, and the weather forecast is predicting rain, is taking an umbrella with me a sign of paranoia?

redsturgeon wrote:Tell that to the relatives of the more than 1000 people registered as dying from Covid in the past two weeks. Or the relatives of the 367 Covid dead reported on Oct 27th.

John

And what about the other 21,000 people who have died in that time? Are they not that important any more?

XFool wrote:If I am going out, and the weather forecast is predicting rain, is taking an umbrella with me a sign of paranoia?

It won't be much use will it in the Hurricane that's bound to happen.

NeilW wrote:

XFool wrote:If I am going out, and the weather forecast is predicting rain, is taking an umbrella with me a sign of paranoia?

It won't be much use will it in the Hurricane that's bound to happen.

Now who is being paranoid?

NeilW wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:Tell that to the relatives of the more than 1000 people registered as dying from Covid in the past two weeks. Or the relatives of the 367 Covid dead reported on Oct 27th.

John

And what about the other 21,000 people who have died in that time? Are they not that important any more?

That's just about the most blatant case of "whataboutism" I've seen for a long time.

John

johnhemming wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:I am genuinely trying to understand in what way "being paranoid" is affecting the pandemic response in a negative way. Could someone please explain that to me.

From what I have seen over the past few months it is complacency rather than paranoia that has brought us to where we find ourselves now.

Although I don't think being abusive assists in discussing issues more generally I do think there is good evidence that the actions of the lockdown prevented the disease spreading more widely during the summer which is resulting in more people dying from the disease at the moment.

You are right of course and it is a fault I am prone too but I just hate it when people try to fob me off with glib and ill thought through comments.

John

More news today from my daughter. Another friend who had the virus earlier in the year is sharing a flat with seven other students at university.

About two weeks ago one of them became ill, tested positive and they all self isolated. They all got tested and five more had positive tests, my daughter's friend and another student who she lived with earlier in the year were the only two negative results, they had both already had the virus.

Today my daughter gets news that her friend had got symptoms a couple of days ago and has now tested positive again.

John

johnhemming wrote:Although I don't think being abusive assists in discussing issues more generally I do think there is good evidence that the actions of the lockdown prevented the disease spreading more widely during the summer which is resulting in more people dying from the disease at the moment.

Not sure I follow that. Are you saying people dying from the disease now could have caught it in the summer and not died if we hadn't had a lockdown?

Seems to me more people would have died back then because the NHS would have been overrun.

Scott.

redsturgeon wrote:...the disease that has killed 45,000 and counting in this country...

But it hasn't.
I just read or started to read before my Adblocker got me blocked, that the UK deaths total has been revised down to 41,000.
And even that is dubious, as it includes anyone dying within 28 days of a positive test.

Comparing the death rate with normality is not helped by such dubious counting.
Nor comparisons with other countries.

Not that I'm being blasé, but expensive govt decisions are being based on this dodgy data. On which, moreover the govt's performance will eventually be assessed.

V8

redsturgeon wrote:....her friend had got symptoms a couple of days ago and has now tested positive again.

I suppose it shouldn't have been a great surprise that one can catch it twice. Like the common cold.
Going to be a blooming nuisance though, in terms of suppressing it.

I wonder what the death rate will be from repetitions.

V8

NeilW wrote:

XFool wrote:If I am going out, and the weather forecast is predicting rain, is taking an umbrella with me a sign of paranoia?

It won't be much use will it in the Hurricane that's bound to happen.

I think he is being pessimistic rather than paranoid. Paranoia would be never going out at all in the belief that everyone you pass by is a walking ball of deadly infection.

Forecasts are just that - the opinion and prediction of some expert. How we respond to that dictates our measure of paranoia or complacency.

88V8 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:...the disease that has killed 45,000 and counting in this country...

But it hasn't.
I just read or started to read before my Adblocker got me blocked, that the UK deaths total has been revised down to 41,000.
And even that is dubious, as it includes anyone dying within 28 days of a positive test.

Comparing the death rate with normality is not helped by such dubious counting.
Nor comparisons with other countries.

Not that I'm being blasé, but expensive govt decisions are being based on this dodgy data. On which, moreover the govt's performance will eventually be assessed.

V8

I know what you mean but in the absence of any solid data, all we can do is go by the official numbers.

John

swill453 wrote:Not sure I follow that. Are you saying people dying from the disease now could have caught it in the summer and not died if we hadn't had a lockdown?

A mixture of two things

a) If a lot of people catch it who are asymptomatic and get resistance then it would spread less readily in the winter.
b) Those that catch it with a lower viral load (summer) don't suffer as bad an infection, but do get resistance.