• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

COVID-19 Stuff Here

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” (October 10th).


"as the primary means of control of the virus".

The WHO has consistently said that the primary methods of controlling the virus are tracking, tracing, handwashing, mask wearing etc. so that lockdowns aren't necessary.

Lockdowns have been necessary when there are too many cases to track and trace so they don't know where the chains of contagion are happening. It is effectively a mass quarantine measure.

This is part of the problem when everything is viewed in some sort of binary situation.

The WHO isn't coming out of this Pandemic looking all that flash. I'd imagine a lot of people will ignore what they say based on their constantly changing statements. This is what they were saying in March.


How is this any changing of their advice? In the statement you quoted, the measures they're suggesting as the best way to suppress and stop transmission isn't the lockdown.
 

Tex

John Thornett (49)
The WHO isn't coming out of this Pandemic looking all that flash. I'd imagine a lot of people will ignore what they say based on their constantly changing statements. This is what they were saying in March.

They are consistent comments.
 

Ignoto

John Thornett (49)
"as the primary means of control of the virus".

The WHO has consistently said that the primary methods of controlling the virus are tracking, tracing, handwashing, mask wearing etc. so that lockdowns aren't necessary.

The second part is probably what I was missing from my background understanding as I was focused on the "primary means" of what the lockdown is meant to achieve. So that's my mix up!

There was the shit show back in June about asymptomatic people being/not being spreaders of COVID which in turned confused the hell out of everyone - https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/questions-raised-over-who-s-seemingly-conflicting

One could also make the argument that China bought the WHO's silence back in April before WHO sent scientists into China to do an investigation.

I acknowledge that it's a far fetched argument, but perceptions matter and between an inability to clearly articulate yourself and accepting eye brow raising fund payment.
 

Tex

John Thornett (49)
I never understood the attacks on WHO for being bought and owned by China. Maybe it's a smoke-fire scenario re. their hesitance to come out strongly back in Jan/Feb about China and the necessary responses, but the USA was always the biggest funder of the WHO. If the WHO was somehow captured by a minor partner that seems more like a failure of diplomacy on behalf of the USA and a useful strawman for orange mussolini to burn at the stake.
 

Ignoto

John Thornett (49)
Tex, it's the same reason why we have rules around donations to political parties. It just doesn't look good.
 

Tex

John Thornett (49)
If we're using political donations as the analogy, surely to the biggest donors go the spoils?
 

Tex

John Thornett (49)
But who knows what to believe here? There's so much smoke and mirrors with this US/China spat
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
The WHO is not the only medical source of anti-lockdown argument.
The Great Barrington Declaration (October 4th) is strongly against lockdowns and was initiated by three prominent epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford. It is co-signed by over 30 medical and public health scientists.
Summary -
Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
....allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The WHO is not the only medical source of anti-lockdown argument.
The Great Barrington Declaration (October 4th) is strongly against lockdowns and was initiated by three prominent epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford. It is co-signed by over 30 medical and public health scientists.
Summary -
Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
..allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.


The WHO are not anti-lockdown. They are just against it as being the primary method of controlling the spread of COVID.

Ahh.. the Great Barrington Declaration. Signed by such esteemed epidemiologists as Dr Johnny Bananas and Professor Cominic Dummings.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid

As always, no one has any reasonable method by which you can shield the people who are at risk from COVID-19 from being infected if the virus is rife in the community.
 

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
The WHO are not anti-lockdown. They are just against it as being the primary method of controlling the spread of COVID.

Ahh.. the Great Barrington Declaration. Signed by such esteemed epidemiologists as Dr Johnny Bananas and Professor Cominic Dummings.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid

As always, no one has any reasonable method by which you can shield the people who are at risk from COVID-19 from being infected if the virus is rife in the community.

And don't forget all of the naturopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths, and sociopaths who have signed that thing.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
The WHO are not anti-lockdown. They are just against it as being the primary method of controlling the spread of COVID.

Ahh.. the Great Barrington Declaration. Signed by such esteemed epidemiologists as Dr Johnny Bananas and Professor Cominic Dummings.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid

As always, no one has any reasonable method by which you can shield the people who are at risk from COVID-19 from being infected if the virus is rife in the community.
Now that you have tackled the easy targets, go ahead and find holes in the expertise of the 3 specialists who created the document and the 30 additional co-signatories. You know, the credible scientists I referred to.
Then read the full script which gives excellent examples of measures to protect the vulnerable.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
I see your 33 scientists with one particular view,and raise it by probably more than 33,000 equally or better qualified scientists worldwide, that think you’re 33 are disastrously wrong......
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
wat2.jpg
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
I see your 33 scientists with one particular view,and raise it by probably more than 33,000 equally or better qualified scientists worldwide, that think you’re 33 are disastrously wrong..
The scientific method has never been about majority rule.
At the very least, it is evident that the science behind lockdowns is debatable.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I see your 33 scientists with one particular view,and raise it by probably more than 33,000 equally or better qualified scientists worldwide, that think you’re 33 are disastrously wrong..


And it should be noted that of those 33 "scientists," many of them do not possess the relevant qualifications to be experts in the subject matter........

For example, I'm hesitant to accept public health advice from the Professor of Finance and Director of the Behavioural Finance working Group.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
And it should be noted that of those 33 "scientists," many of them do not possess the relevant qualifications to be experts in the subject matter....

For example, I'm hesitant to accept public health advice from the Professor of Finance and Director of the Behavioural Finance working Group.


Well, he may understand the public health costs a bit more than the public health expert.

Like cost of cancer treatments postponed, the cost of those who have delayed health checks, the increase in suicides, the increase in family violence, the numbers of kids not getting any decent education this year, the financially destroyed lives of a generation who can't sit at home in their PJs doing zoom calls etc etc
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Well, he may understand the public health costs a bit more than the public health expert.

Like cost of cancer treatments postponed, the cost of those who have delayed health checks, the increase in suicides, the increase in family violence, the numbers of kids not getting any decent education this year, the financially destroyed lives of a generation who can't sit at home in their PJs doing zoom calls etc etc


Once again we come back to how are those things are going in countries that didn't enact lockdown orders.

The answer is not well. The economic impacts have more closely correlated to the severity of the outbreaks rather than severity of lockdown orders. Many countries now have huge second wave outbreaks so the economic destruction is likely to play out for far longer.

The premise that we can just let the economy return to normal is complete fantasy.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
The countries having those huge second waves haven't been having the corresponding death rates

EiyVI3iWkAUvbc1




There is some difference between "return to normal" and regimes with 5km limits and curfews, but meanwhile in Sweden life is back to the "new"
normal, with freedom and autonomy

EkOv6hgX0AA2L90
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
There is some difference between "return to normal" and regimes with 5km limits and curfews, but meanwhile in Sweden life is back to the "new"
normal, with freedom and autonomy


And Sweden still has hundreds of new cases a day.

Melbourne's lockdown has helped get them from that point down to less than 15 cases a day and they're sit to lift a lot of those restrictions this weekend.

Clearly there is still a long way for this to play out before there is clear evidence of what the best options were but there's very little evidence to point to it being to allow the rampant spread of the virus.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
And Sweden still has hundreds of new cases a day.

Melbourne's lockdown has helped get them from that point down to less than 15 cases a day and they're sit to lift a lot of those restrictions this weekend.

Clearly there is still a long way for this to play out before there is clear evidence of what the best options were but there's very little evidence to point to it being to allow the rampant spread of the virus.



New cases does not equal deaths at anyway near the same rate, especially with so many false positives
 
Top