Great Barrington Declaration, lets get back to Cruising!!

[mayleeman]

51 minutes ago, BND said:

Nope.  If cases are actually 8-10X the positive tests, then yes, the death rate would be lower. It's simple math.  It also means more people have been infected than have been reported.   Just based on studies done on waste water, it's been shown the infection rate is much higher than the positive test rate.  So, you are wrong, and rude.

 

I think the answer was tongue in cheek. It happens on the internet any time someone asks if they are losing their mind. Always at least one yes, no matter the topic!

[nomad098]

12 hours ago, time4u2go said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/11/how-many-people-died-the-year-you-were-born/111928450/

 

Thankyou an interesting read.

 

In the UK more and more information is starting to dribble out this week as the debate rages over a national lockdown.

 

One of the heads of the government covid-19 taskforce reported that a vaccine maybe available by Christmas this was quickly followed by one of the other heads stating that "expectations need to managed" and any large scale roll out would be at least 6 months away.

 

The former head of the UK's vaccination programme had a stark warning in regards to a vaccination programme.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/21/covid-vaccine-immunisation-protection

 

An interesting article in the BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

 

Another sad article and shows the unintended pain and suffering caused by the route the UK government have taken. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8854715/More-26-000-excess-deaths-recorded-private-homes-England-Wales-September.html

 

What we are being told by the government in the UK our government scientists is that we will have to abide by lockdowns,  restrictions on life and liberties with masks and social distancing until an indeterminate date whether the population like it or not, with reducing fiscal support for businesses and individuals, while we wait for an untried and untested vaccine, with unknown side effects and the possibility that it may be harmful or lethal to a minority whom may have little effect from covid-19, that may only offer a 50/50 chance of protection, is not designed to break transmission and having to take that chance on what could well be a 6 month or yearly basis for the rest of our lives. 

 

IMF state that $9 trillion has been spent by governments around the world in the fight against coronavirus in the last 7 months 

A fraction of that money has been spent on cancer and heart disease in the last 10 years on the 2 biggest causes of death in the US and UK.

 

At this point i think all options should be on the table and non should be dismissed out of hand including the GBD and John Snow memo.

 

I think that people looking to a vaccine as a "silver bullet",  a short term answer or even a long term solution will need to re-evaluate their expectations. 

 

What this means for cruising or any holiday travel is unknown

 

[TheMastodon]

11 hours ago, John Reid said:

No, you are losing your mind.

 

 

You are wrong Darren.  

[S.A.M.J.R.]

1 hour ago, nomad098 said:

restrictions on life and liberties with masks and social distancing until an indeterminate date whether the population like it or not

I know you're in the UK, and if anyone in another country wants to answer, feel free, but exactly what "liberty" is being restricted by requiring masks?  I really don't get the argument.

 

For as long as I can remember, stores have had signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service".  No one ever complained.  So business CAN require you to wear shirts & shoes, but not masks?

 

The "state" (ie: legally) forces you to wear some kind of clothing when out in public.  So do those who think the government shouldn't be able to force you to wear masks shouldn't be able to force you to wear clothing?     

[beerman2]

42 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I know you're in the UK, and if anyone in another country wants to answer, feel free, but exactly what "liberty" is being restricted by requiring masks?  I really don't get the argument.

 

For as long as I can remember, stores have had signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service".  No one ever complained.  So business CAN require you to wear shirts & shoes, but not masks?

 

The "state" (ie: legally) forces you to wear some kind of clothing when out in public.  So do those who think the government shouldn't be able to force you to wear masks shouldn't be able to force you to wear clothing?     

And the " no shirt, no shoes, no service " was because it created health issues. Isn't that what requiring a mask is a health issue? It's pretty simple to most .

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by beerman2

[nomad098]

28 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I know you're in the UK, and if anyone in another country wants to answer, feel free, but exactly what "liberty" is being restricted by requiring masks?  I really don't get the argument.

 

For as long as I can remember, stores have had signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service".  No one ever complained.  So business CAN require you to wear shirts & shoes, but not masks?

 

The "state" (ie: legally) forces you to wear some kind of clothing when out in public.  So do those who think the government shouldn't be able to force you to wear masks shouldn't be able to force you to wear clothing?     

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I have got to do better with my punctuation, when I refer to liberty I am not referring to wearing a mask, these are required indoor public places and when using public transport, taxis and when car sharing or any place where social distancing is not possible.

 

I am referring to the fact I can not leave my home except to work, medical needs giving/receiving, essential food shopping or to exercise

I cannot meet anyone socially indoors or outdoors who is not in my household

All non essential businesses will be closed

 

Starting Friday for 17 days with an announcement tomorrow of what restrictions will be in place from the 9th November 

 

At the moment there is restrictions on movement and on who you can meet socially outdoors

 

This is in Wales the rules are different in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

[yogimax]

12 hours ago, Olympian said:

With all this discussion about life and death due to the dreaded COVID-19 the thing that pleases me the most is that people are finally agreeing with the principle of Sanctity of Life.  Life is Sacred and we should not have policies that could snuff it out prematurely.

Thank you for your insight regarding the sanctity of life.

 

What is especially scary are the responses by some that the elderly are expendable and can be sacrificed on the altar of those who simply want to hang out with friends at their local bar.

 

 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

28 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I have got to do better with my punctuation, when I refer to liberty I am not referring to wearing a mask, these are required indoor public places and when using public transport, taxis and when car sharing or any place where social distancing is not possible.

 

I am referring to the fact I can not leave my home except to work, medical needs giving/receiving, essential food shopping or to exercise

I cannot meet anyone socially indoors or outdoors who is not in my household

All non essential businesses will be closed

 

Starting Friday for 17 days with an announcement tomorrow of what restrictions will be in place from the 9th November 

 

At the moment there is restrictions on movement and on who you can meet socially outdoors

 

This is in Wales the rules are different in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

I agree things can get locked down "too tight".  Obviously the rights bestowed to citizens vary by country.  The problem is a few "spoil it" for the many.   I do think the virus needs to be gotten under control.  Unfortunately there are many who don't want to take practical steps (masks, social distancing, wash hands) to mitigate the spread.  I think that puts governments between a rock and a hard place.  If the "reasonable" steps aren't followed, then you get to the more severe "draconian" steps.  

 

I don't think saying "those who die from Covid weren't healthy to begin with" or "were going to die soon anyway" is a good way to approach things.  

[BND]

12 hours ago, mayleeman said:

 

I think the answer was tongue in cheek. It happens on the internet any time someone asks if they are losing their mind. Always at least one yes, no matter the topic!

You "think" or you "hope"?  There's absolutely no purpose to doing that on this thread.  It adds no value.  

 

Also, if it's meant to be tongue in cheek, it should be obvious.  I'm on the internet a lot and can normally tell when someone is being facetious or sarcastic.  

Edited October 22, 2020 by BND

[nomad098]

5 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I agree things can get locked down "too tight".  Obviously the rights bestowed to citizens vary by country.  The problem is a few "spoil it" for the many.   I do think the virus needs to be gotten under control.  Unfortunately there are many who don't want to take practical steps (masks, social distancing, wash hands) to mitigate the spread.  I think that puts governments between a rock and a hard place.  If the "reasonable" steps aren't followed, then you get to the more severe "draconian" steps.  

 

I don't think saying "those who die from Covid weren't healthy to begin with" or "were going to die soon anyway" is a good way to approach things.  

 

Talking about government being between a rock and a hard place, the same people who screamed the loudest to the Prime minister that if we followed the GBD advice to focus protect the vulnerable, it would be completely inhumane to isolate them from society, are now screaming at the Prime minister for not ordering the vulnerable to self isolate from society for an unknown time period.

 

I may not like masks and do have genuine concerns in regards to effectiveness due to materials used by the general public not medical grade ones, self contamination and psychological impact they have on social distancing. I still wear my mask everywhere I should and even places I do not need to when I forget I have it on.

 

Social distancing is the best short term measure to slow this virus but long term we need people to be social for the sake of the species.

 

And I honestly cannot believe people need to be told to wash their hands because of the virus they should have been washing their hands regularly anyway 

 

I see the first transatlantic cruise has left Europe for the Caribbean  

[compman9]

The English National Health Service has just released this 

 

It shows, without any exception or bias, or opinion, that doubling the UK's national debt is the craziest decision in our country's history

 

Little over 300 people without pre-existing conditions, and the main workforce that keeps our nation going is half the number that die of drowning !

 

Even if we include the figures for those that sadly have pre-existing conditions, there is absolutely no reason fpr the lockdowns that have prevented treatments for almost any reason, including cancer, heart disease. Suicides have rocketed

 

It is all very very sad, and politicians have made it worse

 

[broberts]

@TheMastodon, @compman9 it seems that the prospect of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of deaths is less important than the economic well being of some. So put that aside. Have you considered that if the healthcare system is expending most of its resources treating COVID-19 cases it will not be able to address any but the most critical of other cases? Have you contemplated the rise in healthcare costs? Do you not think that insurance and NHS costs will soon up? 

[compman9]

1 minute ago, broberts said:

@TheMastodon, @compman9 it seems that the prospect of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of deaths is less important than the economic well being of some. So put that aside. Have you considered that if the healthcare system is expending most of its resources treating COVID-19 cases it will not be able to address any but the most critical of other cases? Have you contemplated the rise in healthcare costs? Do you not think that insurance and NHS costs will soon up? 

 

"Economic well being of some"

You mean, economic well being of all, for the next three generations, so probably around half a billion people

 

Please point me in the direction of the evidence that "possibly millions" will die in the UK

So far, during the absolute worst of the virus, around 1,500 fit and healthy people have died, so we are looking at a dramatic increase

 

At present in the UK, fewer beds are taken up than at any time at this time of year, for decades

 

So, I am happy to debate, but literally all of that is the absolute opposite of the facts

 

 

 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

2 hours ago, compman9 said:

The English National Health Service has just released this 

 

It shows, without any exception or bias, or opinion, that doubling the UK's national debt is the craziest decision in our country's history

 

Little over 300 people without pre-existing conditions, and the main workforce that keeps our nation going is half the number that die of drowning !

 

Even if we include the figures for those that sadly have pre-existing conditions, there is absolutely no reason fpr the lockdowns that have prevented treatments for almost any reason, including cancer, heart disease. Suicides have rocketed

 

It is all very very sad, and politicians have made it worse

 

I think you need to ask, "what qualifies as a pre-existing condition"?  Just for example, if you're 10 pounds overweight, does that qualify you?  15? 20?  If you have diabetes (controlled)?  A weak heart?  

 

Is there any stat that shows how many people have pre-existing conditions?  10%?  20%?  50%?  

[broberts]

4 minutes ago, compman9 said:

 

"Economic well being of some"

You mean, economic well being of all, for the next three generations, so probably around half a billion people

 

Please point me in the direction of the evidence that "possibly millions" will die in the UK

So far, during the absolute worst of the virus, around 1,500 fit and healthy people have died, so we are looking at a dramatic increase

 

At present in the UK, fewer beds are taken up than at any time at this time of year, for decades

 

So, I am happy to debate, but literally all of that is the absolute opposite of the facts

 

 

 

 

I did not claim that millions might die from covid-19 in the UK. Recall the post was addressing posters in both the US and UK. To date some 44.3 thousand people have died in the UK.

 

The UK has had occasion to have a debt to GDP ratios over 200%. It has generally managed to recover in less than 3 generations. 

 

You seem to be arguing that some majority of the population and the economy can motor along as it has in the past. Not being affected by covid-19 and the efforts by all the unfortunates to stay reasonably healthy. Pure fantasy.

[TheMastodon]

29 minutes ago, broberts said:

@TheMastodon, @compman9 it seems that the prospect of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of deaths is less important than the economic well being of some. So put that aside. Have you considered that if the healthcare system is expending most of its resources treating COVID-19 cases it will not be able to address any but the most critical of other cases? Have you contemplated the rise in healthcare costs? Do you not think that insurance and NHS costs will soon up? 

Yes, people will die in a pandemic.  It’s a pandemic.   
 

I’m trying to figure out why I can’t wear a mask and visit a none essential business (perhaps a clothing retailer or electronics store for ex) if masks work.  Masks work so why can’t those people stay open?

 

 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

1 minute ago, TheMastodon said:

Yes, people will die in a pandemic.  It’s a pandemic.   
 

I’m trying to figure out why I can’t wear a mask and visit a none essential business (perhaps a clothing retailer or electronics store for ex) if masks work.  Masks work so why can’t those people stay open?

 

 

Totally agree with you.  The question is will everyone else wear a mask?  Will a store not challenge someone who refuses to wear a mask (they should).  

[nomad098]

21 minutes ago, broberts said:

@TheMastodon, @compman9 it seems that the prospect of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of deaths is less important than the economic well being of some. So put that aside. Have you considered that if the healthcare system is expending most of its resources treating COVID-19 cases it will not be able to address any but the most critical of other cases? Have you contemplated the rise in healthcare costs? Do you not think that insurance and NHS costs will soon up? 

 

14 minutes ago, compman9 said:

 

"Economic well being of some"

You mean, economic well being of all, for the next three generations, so probably around half a billion people

 

 

What some are failing to comprehend is that everything is so interlinked and at the moment the UK is on a knife edge between deaths from covid-19 and deaths due to the measures to control covid-19.

 

The UK's triple AAA rating has dropped to Aaa  and the lower it goes the more borrowing costs.

 

At some point the the magic money tree fails and the UK and many other nations maybe left with some very stark and brutal choices unless solutions are found like a vaccine or alternative methods of dealing with the virus.

 

 

[nomad098]

10 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

Yes, people will die in a pandemic.  It’s a pandemic.   
I’m trying to figure out why I can’t wear a mask and visit a none essential business (perhaps a clothing retailer or electronics store for ex) if masks work.  Masks work so why can’t those people stay open?

 

8 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Totally agree with you.  The question is will everyone else wear a mask?  Will a store not challenge someone who refuses to wear a mask (they should).  

 

Things have just took a left turn here in Wales our glorious leader has just issued a warning to shops like Asda/Walmart that they are not to sell non essential items from Friday 6pm  The only good thing is alcohol is considered essential so I can still make a mojito and dream I am on a cruise.

[TheMastodon]

39 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Totally agree with you.  The question is will everyone else wear a mask?  Will a store not challenge someone who refuses to wear a mask (they should).  

I don’t care if others wear masks.  It has been hammered into my thick skull that masks work so if I have mine on why do I care?

 

Obviously I would prefer everyone wear masks but I have mine on so I should be good right?!!

 

 

[yogimax]

6 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

I don’t care if others wear masks.  It has been hammered into my thick skull that masks work so if I have mine on why do I care?

 

Obviously I would prefer everyone wear masks but I have mine on so I should be good right?!!

Sarcasm?

 

 

[time4u2go]

7 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

I don’t care if others wear masks.  It has been hammered into my thick skull that masks work so if I have mine on why do I care?

 

Obviously I would prefer everyone wear masks but I have mine on so I should be good right?!!

 

 

Not as good as if everyone wore one:

[TheMastodon]

8 minutes ago, yogimax said:

Sarcasm?

 

 

No. 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

39 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

 

Things have just took a left turn here in Wales our glorious leader has just issued a warning to shops like Asda/Walmart that they are not to sell non essential items from Friday 6pm  The only good thing is alcohol is considered essential so I can still make a mojito and dream I am on a cruise.

I disagree with that.  IMO, if a store is allowed to open, then everything in that store should be sellable.  

 

19 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

I don’t care if others wear masks.  It has been hammered into my thick skull that masks work so if I have mine on why do I care?

 

Obviously I would prefer everyone wear masks but I have mine on so I should be good right?!!

 

 

No.  If you and I are having a conversation and I have Covid...

If I have a mask AND you have a mask, you are as protected as you can get.

If I have a mask and you DON'T have a mask, you are still protected (my mask will stop most, but not all of the virus).

If I don't have a mask and you do, you are somewhat protected (your mask stops SOME of the virus).

If neither of us have a mask, you're screwed.  Not really, but just summing it up. 😄

 

Wearing a mask HELPS the wearer, but not as much as if the person with covid wears one.

[Bloodgem]

1 hour ago, compman9 said:

So far, during the absolute worst of the virus, around 1,500 fit and healthy people have died, so we are looking at a dramatic increase

Are these just the deaths that have occurred in hospital?

The table that you posted in #239 only shows deaths from covid that occurred in hospital and does not take into account deaths of fit and healthy working age people that live in care homes because the have Down syndrome or Autism, for example.