It’s not a troll. It’s opinions just disagree with the group think on here
Group-think is a lazy slur. The vast vast majority of climate-scientists understand and accept climate change, is that group think? I'm all for testing one's opinions, and it's certainly good to have some grit in any conversation, but there's a point at which it becomes pointless. Curly didn't have opinions, he had an agenda.
If you poke a wasps nest, even one full of mild mannered middle-aged, middle-class WFH IT workers, you will get stung.
Also anyone using Boomer as a perjorative term is a bit of a dick.
Always happy to debate with one and all. I'm also probably the least contentious when it comes to argument and, perhaps surprisingly skeptical, like @gribs. However the debate has moved on and https://lockdownsceptics.org has become a reasonable source of news, (with its own right-wing slant of course). Restricting contacts reduces transmission. It's now self-evident. The economic and social costs are likely to be high, but then so is an epidemic of Long Covid in young people. I've said all along that morbidity is what matters; deaths are the tip of the iceberg. Healthcare burden, especially long-term, is the bulk and this has yet to be well studied.
Anyway, some interesting science. A study in Israel reports some evidence of vaccine breakthrough for Pfizer and the SA variant - it's a limited case control study, with few actual infections with the SA variant, so caution, but an 8-fold odds ration is likely to be real (smaller). Symptomatic infection not hospitalisations Published here
It would appear the image posting is working again. Not the images I'm used to at breakfast, for certain. Maybe I'll add a graph-porn 😉
I’ve been waiting for nearly 48 hours now and the defence comes down to ‘do your own research’
'Twas ever thus.
Predictably, latest attempt follows exact pattern of previous one. Feigning being reasonable, quasi scientific language, asks lots of questions, doesn't answer any posed to him. Then gets narky, throws around some insults and flounces.
I wonder what his next username will be?
His posting style is very easy to recognise, perhaps better not to engage with him next time.
Posting a pornographic image on this forum is beneath contempt.
Really? He's upping his game with that.
This wasnt a failure to fit in, it was a failure to debate.
Personally, I think it’s a valid topic for discussion. But you actually need to discuss it, with evidence that actually backs it up, or at the very least rational well thought out ideas. Resorting to insults and behaviour that matches up with many of the criteria for trolling isn’t that.
I had one of two options for what was going on.
A) Troll
B) Someone genuinely struggling who is now lashing out at what they perceive to be the cause of harm.
For both these options the last thing you want is arguing on the net but to engage with friends and family to help you through whatever it is causing the problems driving this behaviour.
I see the IMF and others are more optimistic about the UKs economy
I also missed this if it was posted before, the date the agreement was reached regarding Novovax/GSK suggests moves to secure U.K. production.
Originally, the serum would then have been sent to the EU to be filled into vials ready for use. But on March 29, drug company GlaxoSmithKline announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with Novavax and the UK Government Vaccines Taskforce. They will support manufacturing of up to 60 million doses of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine candidate by using a site in County Durham to “fill and finish” instead of the EU. Deliveries are expected from June.
This will ensure that the Novavax production for the UK market is entirely UK-based.
Im assuming that in practice it’s still reliant on some elements being imported for some part of the process. And it’s just the end vaccine manufacturing they’re talking about?
Isn't the fill and finish a very fancy bottling plant?
It is "fill and finish" (bottling), but the drug substance is made up the road. It's entirely UK-based manufacture.
I wonder what his next username will be?
Another type of chocolate bar? Fruit and Nut maybe.
off-Topic ?
They like to be an unnecessary distraction
raw materials/vaccine ingredients?
That one I do not know. But this is (relatively) conventional technology - it's spike protein clumped into virus-like particles. Made from baculovirus, so insect virus-based biotechnology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novavax_COVID-19_vaccine . I imagine its made in disposable plastic bioreactor bags rather than the 20,000L bioreactors used for antibodies. There is likely a shortage of these bags. But ultimately, this is a long game for global manufacture of a global vaccine effort.
Gribs – perhaps you missed his parting shot? Posting a pornographic image on this forum is beneath contempt.
Thankfully I missed that.
Also anyone using Boomer as a perjorative term is a bit of a dick.
Would you rather I said the 65+ retired age group? Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people who could have perfectly well looked after themselves and didn't require government intervention to protect them.
There may well be a strong argument for allowing half a million people to die, and millions more to suffer ill health, rather than take the measures that have been taken. Make it if you wish. Be ready to answer questions.
I don't think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough. Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms. My opinion might be biased as thankfully I don't know anyone who has died or even been seriously ill with covid.
As for long covid, I'll not deny it exists, but think the impact is massively overstated. It appears to be being used as a catch all term for *any* symptoms present after 3 months rather than being limited to significant ones, much like has been done elsewhere to anxiety, depression and Autism.
As for long covid, I’ll not deny it exists, but think the impact is massively overstated.
It takes time and expertise to turn anecdote into firm evidence, but there is certainly a stack of pretty powerful anecdote, including from the poster directly above you.
I don’t think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough. Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms.
Again, this is a Great Barrington talking point. The problem with attempting to delineate the 'at risk' from the 'risk free' is that the two are inescapably mingling in society, rather than the vulnerable being safely tucked up in care homes. An example is myself, asked to shield in lockdown one, but with two 18 year old children who were expected to get themselves into school shortly afterwards. Without hunting the stat, I think it was calculated that a large proportion of the 'clinically extremely vulnerable' lived in households with those who would be expected to study and work on. When you add to this the fact that the elderly, inside and outside care homes, often require care from younger, less vulnerable staff and relatives, the reality of trying to protect this group is something completely different.
TL;DR - you can't just lock up the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. The virus will reach the majority of them.
Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people
Only in your head
Well I got a full card on my "Trolling Zoo-Fighter" bingo from that last post by the gladly departed.
EDIT, I'm one of the last of the Boomer generation at 58, I suspect a lot of the audience here are younger than this. Anyone born after 1965 won't fit the term.
I worry that my millennial children and those born a little earlier will suffer unduly paying back the debt the country has incurred protecting the NHS from collapse. As part of the post COVID-19 world we need to ensure that government fund-raising is directed at those most able to pay. That will be the Bamfords and Ashleys of this world and law needs to change to make sure that this happens.
Would you rather I said the 65+ retired age group? Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people who could have perfectly well looked after themselves and didn’t require government intervention to protect them
Obesity is a big factor for severe disease (in wave 2, particularly - I guess some of the older folk were out of the running by then, either due to dying or isolating but the obesity thing is very notable). Getting on for 30% of adults in England are obese and about 3% morbidly obese - prevalence higher in areas of financial deprivation and younger age groups have quite high numbers. I'm guessing that many would've been in exactly the demographic that wouldn't be furloughed or able to isolate. How would you protect them ?
I don’t think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough.
That hasn't happened in the US. Excess mortality is frankly appalling, one of the highest in the world...
ElShalimo
Full Member
Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of peopleOnly in your head
You took it as being perjorative so that implies to you it's fairly negative term. My parents are Boomers, they're both on decent pensions, have a decent house with a garden, and are in reasonable health. They absolutely had the choice to minimise their risks of getting covid. They took some precautions but mainly carried on with living their lives as much as they were able to.
I don’t think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough. Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms.
Libertarian me agrees, but I've been astounded at times by the behaviour of people (not just this) and I think 'once the perceived risk was high enough' in an exponentially expanding pandemic would equate to 'too late to get back under control'. I don't think the public has much idea how to 'perceive risk' - either high or low - and one of the moans was that when it's done for them it's either scaremongering or cover up, never appropriate.
Whether we get the balance right - I don't think we'll ever know because it's not an experiment; there's no control population. That's why I was genuinely interested by @curlywhirly's graph. I *suspect* it is wrong, if we could unpick properly what 'average lockdown severity' really meant* but it's the closest we will get to a control population.
* I did 'do my own research' in preparation for a response, and lockdown severity index is already an average of 9 measures (eg: are schools, or shops open) then a time average of that as well is really a blunt measure where average totally misses the real information. Indeed, like the average risk of death from CV19 would......
You took it as being perjorative so that implies to you it’s fairly negative term. My parents are Boomers, they’re both on decent pensions, have a decent house with a garden, and are in reasonable health. They absolutely had the choice to minimise their risks of getting covid. They took some precautions but mainly carried on with living their lives as much as they were able to.
You do know that not all older people are like your parents right? That poverty is a thing at all ages. You come across as staggeringly naive.
That hasn’t happened in the US. Excess mortality is frankly appalling, one of the highest in the world…
Is that largely down to their culture and lack of choice due to their lack of support systems? I'd hope the same wouldn't have happened in the UK as we have universal healthcare and a basic welfare state.
How would you protect them ?
I wouldn't try to directly. I wasn't furloughed and have worked throughout the pandemic in Bradford. My wife is a police officer in Leeds. Neither of us have knowingly had covid. Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work if it's adequately enforced, supplemented with a track and trace system that encourages engagement by paying those testing positive, and their close contacts, their full normal wages to isolate. There'd obviously be abuses but it'd be cheaper and more productive than furlough.
Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work if it’s adequately enforced
As a previous H&S consultant you're coming across as very unworldly. There has been a steady de-funding of enforcement since 2008 leading to some gaping holes in safe working.
Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms.
If they could separate "take the risks" from "spread the risks", then maybe.
You do know that not all older people are like your parents right? That poverty is a thing at all ages. You come across as staggeringly naive.
Obviously I do. The term Boomer however isn't usually used for those pensioners in poverty, and pensioners have a distinct advantage in being able to avoid social contact by not having to go to work. Lockdowns will have made very little difference to their available choices, but had a huge impact on the young.
Well maybe we are opening up a more instructive line of discussion. I'm absolutely one of those who's been insulated from the health or financial effects of the pandemic but through work I see close-up the dreadful effects on younger generations. The question as to whether the longer term social, economic and health impacts of interventions like lockdowns are a price worth paying is definitely one to debate. Of course, we can never resolve the debate because it is an uncontrolled experiment but a sensible understanding of costs and benefits would be useful for future waves, and indeed future pandemics. The other question is who pays and, tempting as it might be to send the bill to Mike Ashley, Rishi's going to have look more widely than that, quite possibly at the well insulated like me. For the avoidance of doubt, I think he should.
Lockdowns will have made very little difference to their available choices, but had a huge impact on the young.
Yep, not being able to go to shops, restaurants, cinemas, abroad etc just like the young, not being able to see family, having landmark birthdays seperate from one’s family (and with not long left - wife’s granny had 100th in lockdown in a home), problems with surgeries etc being held up, being stuck in yournhome with no company and all your previous avenues for social interaction closed, not being fit enough to go walking around parks or our buying new lifestyle dogs. Yes the pensioners have had a piece of piss lockdown. All ages are having it tough.
Gribs - I don’t think you’ll get shouted down here - you are engaging in debate & putting over your point of view.
I don’t know how much you’ve read of this thread - it’s effing huge after all - but we are lucky to have several actual experts in these things posting.
All sorts of hypotheses have been chatted about, tested and analysed throughout the pandemic. If there is a groupthink here amongst the long termers, it’s because we’ve been around the houses a few times and been educated.
Very few people here want constant lockdowns. Lockdown is the last resort to curb infection when other policies have failed.
The one thing we have learnt in this pandemic is act early to avoid an out of control situation.
Last March prior to lockdown 1, cases were doubling every 2-3 days. Considering hospitalisation and deaths are higher in this years waves you can predict cases on mar23 2020 were in the region of 40,000/day. Another week of delay in locking down would have produced 160,000+ cases per day. Deaths topped out at @1000/day. That further week would have put it up to 4000/day as cases are linked to deaths.
I am reasonably young/fit/healthy. I’ve kept my job but am on half the pay of pre-Covid and my industry (aviation) is in dire straits. Loads of my mates lost their jobs and have training loans of over £100k they are liable for.
My mum is 74. Should she have been sacrificed so that my kids have more freedoms? My kids don’t think so.
What I don’t understand is that all these elderly people who aren’t worth saving (according to some - not putting words in your mouth) are your mum/dad/gran/aunt/next door neighbour etc. Don’t we look after our vulnerable?
Now I certainly think we should be doing more to protect the worst off in society. Not just in Covid times either. Sadly people vote for our govt because they think Boris is a likeable rogue rather than a dangerous charlatan.
Very few people here want constant lockdowns.
I don’t think anyone wants any lockdowns. There are times when they are the least bad option. And, expensive as they are in so many ways, the assumption that “leave people to it” would be cheaper is a fallacy. Yes, furlough is expensive for ‘the country’ (the government) but leaving people to it not only would have left more people choosing between spreading or earning, but could (I would argue would) have caused more economic damage in both the short and medium term.
Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work if it’s adequately enforced, supplemented with a (functional - my addition) track and trace system that encourages engagement by paying those testing positive, and their close contacts, their full normal wages to isolate. There’d obviously be abuses but it’d be cheaper and more productive than furlough.
I'd endorse this but I don't see it happening any time soon
Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work
Does that apply on the tube or on buses? A fair few people I know regard the journey to work as the significant risk rather than their work environment, m wife’s company was offering people cars into work rather than the tube.
Yes the pensioners have had a piece of piss lockdown. All ages are having it tough.
Ah, but the pensioners were all going to die soon anyway.
Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people who could have perfectly well looked after themselves and didn’t require government intervention to protect them.
The term Boomer however isn’t usually used for those pensioners in poverty
Really? I thought it was merely a contraction of "Baby Boomer" which applies to two or three post war generations. All of them.
It was, but it has, to a degree been hijacked to be an insult.
Well, this has changed tack since I went out this morning.
Fair play to Gribs for coming on and having a sensible debate about the alternative options. How it should be done, always, by both sides.
While there's huge opportunity cost to the young, I really don't think my 80 year old parents have had a better lockdown than my kids. They've all suffered with isolation, lack of getting out enough, anxiety, loss of social, work and educational opportunities.
But I've asked my kids if they feel their generation should have had more freedom being at less risk, and they think I've gone daft. They understand that every social interaction is a risk of catching it and potentially getting long covid and/or spreading it to someone more vulnerable.
I don't think my kids, and their mates, are that untypical of the young either.
MCTD - I completely agree with what you've written.
Every single generation has been affected.
The young are forgetting that one day they will be old and hopefully after working a lifetime, maybe lucky enough to have a retirement and enjoy some free time.
The old were young once and many didn't have the money or freedoms that have been afforded the teens and twenty somethings of today.
I personally won't be retiring for many years and hope to continue to pay my way in society. Yes we middle class, middle aged and slightly older people have mostly had some spare cash, but I and a lot of my friends have given more to charities and plan on supporting many local and new businesses.
We all need to be kind to each other. Nobody wants this pandemic and nobody knows when it may end. But imo throwing insults, making false accusations and constantly blaming the old for ruining every other generation's lives is not the way to carry on.
Really? I thought it was merely a contraction of “Baby Boomer” which applies to two or three post war generations. All of them.
My understanding is that the Baby Boomers are the immediate post-war generation. Those born (roughly) mid '40s to mid 60's and Gen-X (most folk on this site I'd reckon) mid '60's to mid 70s
To some degree the young are always angry with the older generations. We've all been there.
I think the throwing around of accusations and broad sweeping generalisations are not in any way helpful. The one thing which consistently pops up in the media vox pops, and sometimes on here, is the total lack of empathy for others. I've got it really bad, my age group is affected the most, etc etc. We're all in this together and we're all affected by it.
I guess the question for any lockdown sceptics is where would you rather live right now?
Sao Paolo/Rio or Auckland?
Yep, not being able to go to shops, restaurants, cinemas, abroad etc just like the young, not being able to see family, having landmark birthdays seperate from one’s family (and with not long left – wife’s granny had 100th in lockdown in a home), problems with surgeries etc being held up, being stuck in yournhome with no company and all your previous avenues for social interaction closed, not being fit enough to go walking around parks or our buying new lifestyle dogs. Yes the pensioners have had a piece of piss lockdown. All ages are having it tough.
All of those things were done in the name of protecting pensioners. They, and everyone else, should have had the choice to not to do those things to protect themselves and others, but people who wanted to should have been allowed. Even in the OAP group the cost to dementia sufferers from the lack of social contact seems a high price to pay for potentially a few more years of low quality life.
I guess the question for any lockdown sceptics is where would you rather live right now?
Sao Paolo/Rio or Auckland?
I'd pick Auckland if I had similar financial security to what I do here. Lockdown has been easy for me as I've not had to make any significant changes to my lifestyle. If I lived there and my job depended on the tourist industry so I was now unemployed and at risk of homelessness I'm sure I'd feel very differently. I'd personally rather go with what Sweden did but won't pretend that it wouldn't have caused more deaths, just that I think that's an acceptable trade off for more freedom.
All of those things were done in the name of protecting pensioners. They, and everyone else, should have had the choice to not to do those things to protect themselves and others, but people who wanted to should have been allowed.
It’s not just pensioners hit hard by Covid though, is it? And even if it was, they are still people, and most young people have at least one they care about. And how do people just “protect themselves”? Even with all our efforts to keep levels of the virus in the community low, it has still managed to get to people shielding or requiring care. Half our Covid deaths have been in the first few months of this year, when we knew far more about transmission vectors than we did in the first ‘wave’, and yet we still couldn’t keep the virus away from people at risk, and had to ‘lockdown’ just to ensure our hospitals could continue to offer care to people.
I’d personally rather go with what Sweden did but won’t pretend that it wouldn’t have caused more deaths, just that I think that’s an acceptable trade off for more freedom.
How many more deaths? And have you looked at the economic impact on Sweden?
There seems to be a perception that Sweden has done nothing. What they actually did was ask their sensible population to do things voluntarily which they generally did. Curent measures in Sweden aren't vastly different to here.
You mention tourism being affected in NZ. How many tourists are heading to Brazil right now?
There is no simple answer, which the ever sensible Professor Whitty has said from day 1.
As someone hugely affected by the curbs to the tourist industry, I still support restrictions for now. What I would like is some clarity and sensible policies.