1. 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

Discussion in 'Everything Else' started by dru, Mar 16, 2020.

  1. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    25,687

    "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.


    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.
    boyo, zer0 and Dctarget like this.
  2. Tex Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    2,624
    They are consistent comments.
  3. Ignoto Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    2,151
    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.
  4. Tex Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    2,624
    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.
    I like to watch likes this.
  5. Ignoto Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    2,151
    Tex, it's the same reason why we have rules around donations to political parties. It just doesn't look good.
  6. Tex Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    2,624
    If we're using political donations as the analogy, surely to the biggest donors go the spoils?
  7. Tex Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    2,624
    But who knows what to believe here? There's so much smoke and mirrors with this US/China spat
  8. formerflanker Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    1,470
    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.
  9. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    25,687

    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.
    boyo likes this.
  10. Teh Other Dave Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    986
    And don't forget all of the naturopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths, and sociopaths who have signed that thing.
    boyo and Ignoto like this.
  11. formerflanker Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    1,470
    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.
  12. I like to watch Simon Poidevin (60)

    Likes Received:
    5,689
    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..
    Braveheart81 likes this.
  13. formerflanker Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    1,470
  14. formerflanker Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    1,470
    The scientific method has never been about majority rule.
    At the very least, it is evident that the science behind lockdowns is debatable.
  15. Slim 293 George Gregan (70)

    Likes Received:
    11,260

    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.
  16. fatprop Jason Little (69)

    Likes Received:
    9,924

    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
  17. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    25,687

    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.
    boyo likes this.
  18. fatprop Jason Little (69)

    Likes Received:
    9,924
    The countries having those huge second waves haven't been having the corresponding death rates

    [IMG]



    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

    [IMG]
  19. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    25,687

    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.
    boyo likes this.
  20. fatprop Jason Little (69)

    Likes Received:
    9,924


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

Share This Page