O/T:- Are we over-reacting to COVD19?

[forwardmagpie]

Jackal, I've read your reply and to me it looks like you've completely dodged some of my points and used semantics to wriggle out of others, all the while falling back on advocating 'sensible precautions' without really specifying what is sensible and what isn't, while also consistently leading people to underestimate the severity of the virus, therefore increasing the probability that they won't take said sensibile precautions.

This is the your post I was referring to on the 'games off in Italy' thread. We argue about the semantics but to me the intent is clear. The deliberately misleading statistics you made up at the end are the icing on the cake.




I think your overriding disdain for the media and unusual approach to mortality mean there's too much distance between us on this to make this a fruitful conversation. If you think the precautions people are currently taking (which from talking to friends in the UK and seeing what they post online amount to pretty much zilch) are 'sensible' then I truly believe you have no idea what may be around the corner.

I have just listened to Mark Walport - Chief Executive of UK Research and Innovation (and previously for 4 years the Governments Chief Scientific Advisor) on Sky News who gave what I thought was a very knowledgeable, well balanced and thoughtful interview - worth a watch.

[drillerpie]

I have just listened to Mark Walport - Chief Executive of UK Research and Innovation (and previously for 4 years the Governments Chief Scientific Advisor) on Sky News who gave what I thought was a very knowledgeable, well balanced and thoughtful interview - worth a watch.

I didn't see it unfortunately. Have you got a link or could you give a summary of what was said?

[jackal2]

Jackal, I've read your reply and to me it looks like you've completely dodged some of my points and used semantics to wriggle out of others, all the while falling back on advocating 'sensible precautions' without really specifying what is sensible and what isn't, while also consistently leading people to underestimate the severity of the virus, therefore increasing the probability that they won't take said sensible precautions.

I would say that that the 'sensible precautions' are to follow the advice given by the Chief Medical Officer and DHSC Chief Scientific Adviser who is certainly more qualified than me and I suspect more qualified than you to give guidance. He has been advocating phased approach, but with extra precautions for those groups who are most vulnerable.

You seem to have dodged the point that by putting generally fit, well and younger folk into an excessive level of isolation, you only delay the spike and potentially cause an even bigger one down the line, because a degree of exposure to threats is required to keep our immune systems active and in a state of readiness for something like this.

We argue about the semantics but to me the intent [of your post referring to 'games off in Italy'] is clear. The deliberately misleading statistics you made up at the end are the icing on the cake.
I think your overriding disdain for the media and unusual approach to mortality mean there's too much distance between us on this to make this a fruitful conversation. If you think the precautions people are currently taking (which from talking to friends in the UK and seeing what they post online amount to pretty much zilch) are 'sensible' then I truly believe you have no idea what may be around the corner

My statistics weren't misleading. I compared the number of deaths against the total population whereas you compared the number of deaths amongst those known to have contracted COVID-19, which is an unverified figure anyway. It's simply a case of which context you wish to use. Talking of context...

On average in Italy every year there are around 4,000 suicides amongst a population of circa 60 million. The current Coronavirus death toll in Italy is around 1,440 which in terms of the number of infections is high and the toll could reach similar proportions to the suicide rate this year if not more, but COVID-19 will be very time limited in its impact, whereas the suicide rate has been fairly constant for at least two decades. Plus, where Coronavirus is known to be most dangerous to people who are old or have underlying health conditions, mental health issues have a wider effect across all ages.

The media are obsessed with COVID-19 because it is a new phenomenon that gives them 'breaking' stories and new figures every day and it is not 'routine'. Meanwhile, mental health issues which will cause the death of many more people, consistently year after year, barely get mentioned unless someone famous happens to end their lives, or an anonymous person's suicide is especially dramatic.

The media are not motivated by the 'public interest'. They are motivated by selling their products, and to do so they seek the kind of originality and drama that COVID-19 will provide globally for a period of time. Meanwhile 800,000 people across the world kill themselves each year and most go completely unnoticed, even though this is a much bigger, longer running, permanent 'story'. It just doesn't shift newspapers or attract viewers the same way.

[LaxtonLad]

I would say that that the 'sensible precautions' are to follow the advice given by the Chief Medical Officer and DHSC Chief Scientific Adviser who is certainly more qualified than me and I suspect more qualified than you to give guidance. He has been advocating phased approach, but with extra precautions for those groups who are most vulnerable.

You seem to have dodged the point that by putting generally fit, well and younger folk into an excessive level of isolation, you only delay the spike and potentially cause an even bigger one down the line, because a degree of exposure to threats is required to keep our immune systems active and in a state of readiness for something like this.



My statistics weren't misleading. I compared the number of deaths against the total population whereas you compared the number of deaths amongst those known to have contracted COVID-19, which is an unverified figure anyway. It's simply a case of which context you wish to use. Talking of context...

On average in Italy every year there are around 4,000 suicides amongst a population of circa 60 million. The current Coronavirus death toll in Italy is around 1,440 which in terms of the number of infections is high and the toll could reach similar proportions to the suicide rate this year if not more, but COVID-19 will be very time limited in its impact, whereas the suicide rate has been fairly constant for at least two decades. Plus, where Coronavirus is known to be most dangerous to people who are old or have underlying health conditions, mental health issues have a wider effect across all ages.

The media are obsessed with COVID-19 because it is a new phenomenon that gives them 'breaking' stories and new figures every day and it is not 'routine'. Meanwhile, mental health issues which will cause the death of many more people, consistently year after year, barely get mentioned unless someone famous happens to end their lives, or an anonymous person's suicide is especially dramatic.

The media are not motivated by the 'public interest'. They are motivated by selling their products, and to do so they seek the kind of originality and drama that COVID-19 will provide globally for a period of time. Meanwhile 800,000 people across the world kill themselves each year and most go completely unnoticed, even though this is a much bigger, longer running, permanent 'story'. It just doesn't shift newspapers or attract viewers the same way.

Well put, jackal2. Of course the authorities have to give us the best and most recent medical advice but to the newspapers this virus is a "Media Event" and editors are trying to outdo each other with sensational headlines - have you noticed how there is so little reporting of any other news? Nothing? That's because any other news is not the "nouvelles du jour".

I am 72 and until I am actually obliged not leave my home I will carry on taking my little zinc pills, drink lots of fluids and wear gloves outside the house.

[maddogslater]

It's must be like the phoney war, 1939...you know he's massing troops at the boarder, just waiting for the onslaught.
Nothing will change after it go's away, we'll carry on chopping down the rain forests, dumping crap in the rivers and oceans, corporations fking every one over, more wars bombings deaths to add to the hundreds of thousands in the middle East protecting democracy, if it were a casino, we would be the mugs shovelling coins into the slot machines, the bankers and traders betting all on red or black, don't matter if they lose cus the house will just steal from the slot machines and players and hand it over to them to keep playing, the house is the military industrial corporations.

[forwardmagpie]

I didn't see it unfortunately. Have you got a link or could you give a summary of what was said?

Driller, not good at this but this maybe the interview 🤷*♂️

https://youtu.be/jzvOwF48z4s

[drillerpie]

I would say that that the 'sensible precautions' are to follow the advice given by the Chief Medical Officer and DHSC Chief Scientific Adviser who is certainly more qualified than me and I suspect more qualified than you to give guidance. He has been advocating phased approach, but with extra precautions for those groups who are most vulnerable.

I certainly listen to him, just as I listen to many other experts in the field who are questioning the different response compared to in other countries. An important part of science is peer review and consensus, so when the health officials in one country take a radically different course of action to most other countries, I think it's wise to consider other points of view.

You seem to have dodged the point that by putting generally fit, well and younger folk into an excessive level of isolation, you only delay the spike and potentially cause an even bigger one down the line, because a degree of exposure to threats is required to keep our immune systems active and in a state of readiness for something like this.way.

I didn't dodge it, I answered that delaying the spike is a good thing as it gives time to prepare. Why would you have a bigger spike down the line? The number of potential infections is the same, but you would have had more time to procure equipment, train staff, build specialised hospitals etc.

My statistics weren't misleading. I compared the number of deaths against the total population whereas you compared the number of deaths amongst those known to have contracted COVID-19, which is an unverified figure anyway. It's simply a case of which context you wish to use.

It was a blatant attempt to mislead people, as is this.

On average in Italy every year there are around 4,000 suicides amongst a population of circa 60 million. The current Coronavirus death toll in Italy is around 1,440 which in terms of the number of infections is high and the toll could reach similar proportions to the suicide rate this year if not more, but COVID-19 will be very time limited in its impact, whereas the suicide rate has been fairly constant for at least two decades. Plus, where Coronavirus is known to be most dangerous to people who are old or have underlying health conditions, mental health issues have a wider effect across all ages.

You've cleared up your own point. The suicide rate is stable, while deaths from coronavirus multiply exponentially. When you posted your misleading statistics, Italy had had two deaths in the space of a few days.

Now N.Italy has been under lockdown for a week and they're still getting about 200 deaths per day. If they hadn't chosen lockdown the health service wouldn't have been able to continue functioning. That is why Coronavirus is receiving more government attention than suicides do and I think it's hard to argue with that.

The media are obsessed with COVID-19 because it is a new phenomenon that gives them 'breaking' stories and new figures every day and it is not 'routine'. Meanwhile, mental health issues which will cause the death of many more people, consistently year after year, barely get mentioned unless someone famous happens to end their lives, or an anonymous person's suicide is especially dramatic.

The media are not motivated by the 'public interest'. They are motivated by selling their products, and to do so they seek the kind of originality and drama that COVID-19 will provide globally for a period of time. Meanwhile 800,000 people across the world kill themselves each year and most go completely unnoticed, even though this is a much bigger, longer running, permanent 'story'. It just doesn't shift newspapers or attract viewers the same way.

Apart from the fact that I don't think you can tar all of the media with the same brush, because some newspapers dedicate more space than others to mental health issues, I think your obsession with the media and their motives is clouding your judgement.

I also think you are failing to distinguish between what the media reports because it is relevant, like coronavirus, what is not relevant but is in the news purely because it sells, like celebrity gossip and so on, and things that should be in the news but aren't, like provision of mental health professionals.

Just because suicide is under reported, doesn't mean coronavirus is being driven by media hype.

[drillerpie]

Driller, not good at this but this maybe the interview 🤷*♂️

https://youtu.be/jzvOwF48z4s

Thanks, I'll have a look!

[drillerpie]

Driller, not good at this but this maybe the interview 🤷*♂️

https://youtu.be/jzvOwF48z4s

I thought it was a bit of a softball interview to be honest.

These are the questions I would've asked him:

The CMO says we will reach Italian numbers of cases in 4 weeks, but we will see a different response to the Italian one (ie no lockdown). Seeing as Italy had to shut the country down to protect the health system, and the UK has half the Italian number of intensive care beds per capita, is that feasible?

As I understand it we don't yet know for sure whether people who have been infected can be reinfected, or how quickly the virus mutates. Does this make the 'herd immunity' plan risky?

The number of tests carried out per capita in the UK is relatively low, and the CMO estimates the true number of case to be 5-10 thousand. Given that these cases will now be multiplying exponentially, and given that the plan is to try manage the number of in patients at a constant level just below NHS capacity, won't the lack of data (the fact that we don't know exactly how many cases we have and where), make the planning exceptionally difficult?

There is already a body of evidence to suggest that early action (as in Singapore, Hong kong etc) such as social distancing and obligatory mask wearing negates the need for a lockdown later on. Would this have been preferable?

[BigFatPie]

I certainly listen to him, just as I listen to many other experts in the field who are questioning the different response compared to in other countries. An important part of science is peer review and consensus, so when the health officials in one country take a radically different course of action to most other countries, I think it's wise to consider other points of view.



I didn't dodge it, I answered that delaying the spike is a good thing as it gives time to prepare. Why would you have a bigger spike down the line? The number of potential infections is the same, but you would have had more time to procure equipment, train staff, build specialised hospitals etc.




It was a blatant attempt to mislead people, as is this.



You've cleared up your own point. The suicide rate is stable, while deaths from coronavirus multiply exponentially. When you posted your misleading statistics, Italy had had two deaths in the space of a few days.

Now N.Italy has been under lockdown for a week and they're still getting about 200 deaths per day. If they hadn't chosen lockdown the health service wouldn't have been able to continue functioning. That is why Coronavirus is receiving more government attention than suicides do and I think it's hard to argue with that.




Apart from the fact that I don't think you can tar all of the media with the same brush, because some newspapers dedicate more space than others to mental health issues, I think your obsession with the media and their motives is clouding your judgement.

I also think you are failing to distinguish between what the media reports because it is relevant, like coronavirus, what is not relevant but is in the news purely because it sells, like celebrity gossip and so on, and things that should be in the news but aren't, like provision of mental health professionals.

Just because suicide is under reported, doesn't mean coronavirus is being driven by media hype.

Interesting exchanges, but Jackal thinks Guido Fawkes is a trusted source and that it’s ok for politicians to lie in referendum and election campaigns, so I would take his protestations about the meeja with a barrowful of salt.

His ongoing determination to play down the current health emergency is odd to say the least.