Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

And when dealing with IEDs were there precise metrics as to when you did one thing versus doing another, or were the leadership expected to exercise their judgement based on the best knowledge and advice available at the time, according to the situation as it evolved?

In a previous post I summarised a public affairs show in Canada where several public health officials said that most of the outbreaks they were actually seeing were mainly due to face to face socialising in unstructured environments, not in work places, schools, restaurants, or pubs who were following the guidelines. When the guidelines are followed they seem to be reasonably effective.

The main problems were large gatherings involving family and friends, such as large parties and weddings where people were not following social distancing guidelines or the limits on the number of people.

As a result in Ontario the numbers of people allowed to gather in a location outside of work, school has recently been reduced to (if I recall correctly) 10 indoors and 25 outdoors.

This sounds very similar to the situation in the UK despite being arrived at independently. It was based on the latest evidence by observation of where outbreaks were actually occurring as seen by the people investigating them.

I offered to post that video here, but there were no takers.

I agree with your latter point.

My former point was as a commander, my principle was mostly greatest good for greatest number - utilitarianism if you will. As opposed to a Kantian approach with categorical imperatives.

Now, if we go down the Kantian approach of it never being acceptable for someone to die from Covid, we can all brick our doors up. No transmission, it would die out in three weeks, along with millions. Or it is the greatest good for the greatest number. So how many people is it acceptable to die for our previous liberty. 20,000 deaths a year from flu previously merited no restriction on liberty. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t impose restrictions, but asking what are the metrics and science behind it.
 
There's been talk of prioritising certain groups for the vaccine when it starts to be issued, since the quantities required for everyone won't be there initially. I assume they mean front line hospital staff or the elderly.
The same has been said in Canada with respect to priorities of who gets the vaccine. There has been no official policy set however, and I suspect there won't be one until they know what vaccines will be available and in what quantities.

So from that I'd guess that over the long term not everyone would need it; just those most at risk, a bit like the flu vaccine.
The greatest benefit would come from everyone getting the vaccine in order to try to reduce the prevalence of the virus to as low a level as practical, and to wipe it out if possible.

There will be several problems. One is that vaccines often are not 100% effective. That is, some percentage of the people who get vaccinated will for some reason not produce the correct immune response and so will not actually be immunised.

Another problem, related to the one above, is that some people have weak immune systems, so the vaccination will do relatively little to protect them. These may be the elderly, those living with cancer or other diseases, and others. The vaccination "primes" their immune system, but it may still be too weak to fight off the virus.

However, if enough people get vaccinated effectively, then the rest are protected through "herd immunity". Yes this is like the herd immunity you would have if most people had the disease and survived it, but it's produced through artificial means rather than through having most people get sick.

The issue is going to be if enough people listen to anti-vaxxers and refuse to get vaccinated, we won't hit the 70% level (or whatever it is) required for herd immunity, and we'll still get outbreaks, although not as serious as we have now. It should be remembered by the way that a certain percentage of the people who do get vaccinated won't be immune because the vaccine didn't work effectively on them for some reason, so there isn't headroom for 30% of people to be anti-vaxxers.
 
So how many people is it acceptable to die for our previous liberty. 20,000 deaths a year from flu previously merited no restriction on liberty. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t impose restrictions, but asking what are the metrics and science behind it.

We need a sociopath to crunch the numbers.

Years of life lost due to the coronavirus, versus the years of life lost due to the lockdown and damaged economy (cancer/strokes/suicides/etc).

I suspect the latter would be the great number.

Sorry granddad.
 
We need a sociopath to crunch the numbers.

Years of life lost due to the coronavirus, versus the years of life lost due to the lockdown and damaged economy (cancer/strokes/suicides/etc).

I suspect the latter would be the great number.

Sorry granddad.

I like the thought of “value-added years”. it’s not far off what NICE do now.
 
I read it; nowhere in it does it say this:


That bit in bold is bollox. The article does say that confirmed reinfections are rare. It may even say 'extremely rare'. That's evidence right there.

It's certainly not empirical evidence.

As for the article - it's here:

Re-infection has only been conclusively documented in a very limited number of cases so far and it is unclear whether this is a rare phenomenon or may prove to become a common occurrence. Likewise, how a previous infection would affect the course of disease in a re-infection, and whether some level of pre-existing immunity would affect viral shedding and transmissibility, is unknown.

You are claiming that people who have experienced COVID are immune - the authors have said (and the peer reviewers and editors have agreed) there is no evidence to suggest this is the case given there are incidents of reinfection.

It's a type 1 vs type 2 error problem - what is more severe - to assume immunity when there is none; or to assume there is no immunity when there is immunity (obviously we can get into the circular argument of the effects from controlling the disease).
 
Last edited:
I agree with your latter point.

My former point was as a commander, my principle was mostly greatest good for greatest number - utilitarianism if you will. As opposed to a Kantian approach with categorical imperatives.

Now, if we go down the Kantian approach of it never being acceptable for someone to die from Covid, we can all brick our doors up. No transmission, it would die out in three weeks, along with millions. Or it is the greatest good for the greatest number. So how many people is it acceptable to die for our previous liberty. 20,000 deaths a year from flu previously merited no restriction on liberty. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t impose restrictions, but asking what are the metrics and science behind it.
The description that I've seen from Canadian public health officials is from this point onwards until we have an effective vaccine is that it will be a game of "whack-a-mole", which I gather is a children's game where you mallet moles as they poke their heads up out of the game board. Outbreaks will happen, and public health officials will jump on them immediately and try to suppress them by finding the individuals involved (track and trace) and isolating them. The rest of society can then go on as at present.

If that isn't enough, then the social distancing system has a fine tuning knob which can be dialled up and down as necessary.

If all of the above fails, then lockdown is available as a tool, but only on a local level (e.g. by health unit) and only as a last resort. It will only be necessary if infection goes into "community transmission mode" again, where they can't figure out where the majority of the infections are coming from. It's a very blunt instrument so it's not the one they would choose to use if possible.

Nobody thinks that we will have no deaths in the next year, and nobody thinks we will have no outbreaks. A rise in infections was expected, which is why the provincial government had put so much effort into increasing testing capacity, and have plans to double it further. A sort of slow burn is acceptable, a repeat of the spring is not. August is seen as being the absolute best case situation between then and next summer.

What wasn't acceptable was a sudden steep rise which in my area was attributed to university students partying like there wasn't a pandemic on and then panicking when people started getting sick and then all rushing out to the testing centres when it was too late to actually doing anything about it. The current measures are targetted at putting a crimp in the plans of the people who had been causing the problems. New fines have been instituted here, $10,000 minimum fine for anyone putting on a non-compliant social event, and $750 fines for each attendee. The university has said there will be consequences for students who violate rules even off campus, up to and including expulsion.
 
That was my point. You said "we need evidence that there is no reinfection" but you cannot prove that as it's evidence of absence.

All you can do is provide evidence that reinfection does not occur in a certain period of time. For all you know the next day reinfection could occur. As soon as someone provides strong evidence that there is no reinfection for 6 months after initial infection some smartarse will say "What about a year after infection?".

I could reply absence of evidence does not mean absence of effect; but I still believe the argument here is that they need to see evidence of immunity to claim there is immunity (as mentioned in my post above, in my view this is a type 1 vs type 2 error "thing".).
 
Last edited:
We need a sociopath to crunch the numbers.

Years of life lost due to the coronavirus, versus the years of life lost due to the lockdown and damaged economy (cancer/strokes/suicides/etc).

I suspect the latter would be the great number.

Sorry granddad.

I'm sure someone has probably crunched those numbers - and agree - it would be interesting to see actually.

The funny is for the final sentence,
 
That is absolutely fcuking scandalous. My piss is boiling, the cheeky fcuking twats. Extortion thats what that is, what a bunch of cnuts.

They should be offering a fecking refund for the reduced amount of travel, therefore less risk.

Report the feckers to the Insurance Ombudsman.

Bastards.
The company was SAGA but I wonder if any other insurance company is using this b*llshit excuse to increase income.

Given that they provide policies for the older driver, how many would just accept it as fact & pay the increased premium?

I have worked normally throughout but only use my car for work, about 3500 miles per year.
 
You are claiming that people who have experienced COVID are immune

No, you're changing the goal posts. This came about because Last Walt (or was it Terminal?) said there was no evidence of long term immunity.

I called bullshit because there is evidence of long term immunity.

Don't confuse evidence with proof; proof is a body of evidence strong enough to constitute proof.

Do try to keep up.
 
please share Your crystal ball with us and tell us the impact on the NHS of say, five hundred thousand each of extra patients with severe lung and heart problems in say 10 years?
I’m sat on the khasi was typing this And can tell whey eye that 5 months after getting it, my ( non smokers) lungs are still like a 40 a day mans.
To the extent that my doc had me in for a chest ex ray last Tuesday and full bloods again !.
She tells me she is seeing loads of nasty complications on this ,which they really haven’t a handle on why.
So no , bloody flue it is not.!
 
The company was SAGA but I wonder if any other insurance company is using this b*llshit excuse to increase income.

Given that they provide policies for the older driver, how many would just accept it as fact & pay the increased premium?

I have worked normally throughout but only use my car for work, about 3500 miles per year.
They also want to issue more shares due to 'disappointing performance' which may explain things.
 
I’m sat on the khasi was typing this And can tell whey eye that 5 months after getting it, my ( non smokers) lungs are still like a 40 a day mans.
To the extent that my doc had me in for a chest ex ray last Tuesday and full bloods again !.
She tells me she is seeing loads of nasty complications on this ,which they really haven’t a handle on why.
So no , bloody flue it is not.!

Hope you get better soon, mate. And I don't deny this can happen; it can happen with flu too.

Prof Gupta spoke about this subject on the last QT; you should be to see it on I Player.

Her main point was that the flu and other viral infections also can cause long term effects, yet we don't close the economy down for that either.
 
I’m sat on the khasi was typing this And can tell whey eye that 5 months after getting it, my ( non smokers) lungs are still like a 40 a day mans.
To the extent that my doc had me in for a chest ex ray last Tuesday and full bloods again !.
She tells me she is seeing loads of nasty complications on this ,which they really haven’t a handle on why.
So no , bloody flue it is not.!

that’s what I was like. I started running about 16 weeks after getting it. I posted in one of the other Covid threads that I felt like I was on 40 Marlboro reds a day. The running has really helped improve my lung capacity. I still don’t think I’m right but can’t decide if it’s Covid or age. I’m doing 2-3 x 5 milers a weeks now and an hours weight set three times a week. Exercise has helped my recovery a lot
 
A sort of slow burn is acceptable, a repeat of the spring is not. August is seen as being the absolute best case situation between then and next summer.

Note that I am not disagreeing with you, but please explain the statement above. Why is a slow burn acceptable but the spring not?
 
Hope you get better soon, mate. And I don't deny this can happen; it can happen with flu too.

Prof Gupta spoke about this subject on the last QT; you should be to see it on I Player.

Her main point was that the flu and other viral infections also can cause long term effects, yet we don't close the economy down for that either.
That's probably because there's a vaccine for flu, but not for chinese virus, which as we all know now causes excess death on top of flu. Not really the type of thing to leave to it's own devices. I look forward to more severe restrictions to get this virus under some sort of control.
 
That's probably because there's a vaccine for flu, but not for chinese virus, which as we all know now causes excess death on top of flu. Not really the type of thing to leave to it's own devices. I look forward to more severe restrictions to get this virus under some sort of control.

No, a vaccine has nothing to do with it. Only those in 'at risk groups' get the flu vaccine, and everybody else just gets the flu and feels unwell for a week-or-so.

And some of these people, including children (who've never had the flu vaccine) can experience long term problems from the flu infection.

There's plenty on the web about the long term effects from viral infections. Luckily enough it's pretty rare.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top