3 Tier system or circuit breaker lockdown?

[Brigadier]

I said:" it is impossible to protect the vulnerable". Which is correct. It is impossible.
There are 2 1/2 million CEV clinically extremely vulnerable people in UK, it's impossible to protect them......if you believe me, perhaps you might want to some research, like I've done.


You said: "So what is the point of anything any government........"

Which is a non sequitur.
You can't make that conclusion from what I said, ergo you are wrong, end of




You may apologise whenever you like

Each time I show you to be wrong, you shift the goalposts, vainly trying to deflect from the fact you've been shown to be wrong.

You can apologise any time you like, but I won't hold my breath for you to do so.

 

[Brigadier]

I said:" it is impossible to protect the vulnerable". Which is correct. It is impossible.
There are 2 1/2 million CEV clinically extremely vulnerable people in UK, it's impossible to protect them......if you believe me, perhaps you might want to some research, like I've done.


You said: "So what is the point of anything any government........"

Which is a non sequitur.
You can't make that conclusion from what I said, ergo you are wrong, end of




You may apologise whenever you like

Each time I show you to be wrong, you shift the goalposts, vainly trying to deflect from the fact you've been shown to be wrong.

You can apologise any time you like, but I won't hold my breath for you to do so.

 

[IT Minion]

Copy & pasters are amebic. No thoughts of their own

Yeah, but Ryler will get over it in time I hope.

Personally I get irked by people who drop multiple one sentence replies in quick succession. When you're replying to multiple people then fine, but when it's just the same digital incontinence then it's embarrassing.

 

[Notch7]

Oh dear ; resorting to strawmen to desperately claw back your lost face

No Strawman, just facts.

Herd immunity allows the spread of the virus without restriction. It allows all non vulnerable people to get the virus.

Vulnerable people need contact with careers, nurses etc etc......so they can't be isolated.

And there are over 2.5 million very vulnerable people and many more people with health conditions that puts them at risk. There is no realistic way to protect those.

The herd immunity advocates have no solution to this nor do they even present one.

 

[Notch7]

Each time I show you to be wrong, you shift the goalposts, vainly trying to deflect from the fact you've been shown to be wrong.

You can apologise any time you like, but I won't hold my breath for you to do so.

I've been consistent, you have not.

You made a stupid comment: " what was the point of governments blah blah.....

Any now instead of being man and admitting it's wrong and childish pointscoring, you keep doubling down on it.

You are welcome to keep embarrassing yourself, your choice


PS: you can back to me with some evidence that backs up your claim "vulnerable can be protected"....any time you want

 

[Brigadier]

No Strawman, just facts.

Herd immunity allows the spread of the virus without restriction. It allows all non vulnerable people to get the virus.

Vulnerable people need contact with careers, nurses etc etc......so they can't be isolated.

And there are over 2.5 million very vulnerable people and many more people with health conditions that puts them at risk. There is no realistic way to protect those.

The herd immunity advocates have no solution to this nor do they even present one.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3487

Easy enough to check.

 

[IT Minion]

Herd immunity allows the spread of the virus without restriction. It allows all non vulnerable people to get the virus.

Correction, it requires the spread without restriction. If you have a section of the 'to-be-infected' population that still takes precautions then it'll slow the spread and risk never quite getting to the right level. It'll also fizzle near the end, local pockets will be hidden and then exposed. So there'll never really be any safe time to stop.

It also potentially requires multiple infections as it is known that you can be reinfected different strains. Which, just for fun, more would probably develop as we'd be infecting many times the number of people who've previous caught it across the world. Giving the virus more time to mutate.

For it to work in a useful timeframe you'd need mandatory infections.

 

[IT Minion]

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3487

Easy enough to check.

Worth noting that was referencing vaccination.

Population immunity through a mixture of vaccination and natural infection is the only long term solution for zero covid

I don't think many people disagree with that.

 

[motorbiking]

So what’s the gist of this thread? Not going to read the last 11 pages?

I can’t see how lockdowns work unless the whole world does it. Local targeting seems to take the edge off while allowing some degree of economic function.

 

[IT Minion]

So what’s the gist of this thread? Not going to read the last 11 pages?

Everyone is grumpy and roughly everyone is considered an idiot.

 

[ellal]

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG

Ryler was indeed wrong.
The average age (In England and wales) of a 'virus' victim isn't 82 years old.
It's actually 82.4 years old...

And 'bizarrely' it's now a higher age than the average age for deaths from other causes which is 81.5 years old...

 

[Brigadier]

I've been consistent, you have not.

No you haven't.
You've gone from "It is impossible to protect the vulnerable", to "it is impossible to protect 2.5 million vulnerable".
You've derided me for advocating the virus being let loose, when I clearly stated that controlled herd immunity could be sought (I am not advocating either, btw).
Those two are just for starters.

You made a stupid comment: " what was the point of governments blah blah.....

Any now instead of being man and admitting it's wrong and childish pointscoring, you keep doubling down on it.


[/QUOTE]


Oh, the irony.

You are welcome to keep embarrassing yourself, your choice

I might be welcome to, but you are the one who is. Repeatedly.

PS: you can back to me with some evidence that backs up your claim "vulnerable can be protected"....any time you want

I already gave you an example of how anyone can be protected. You refuse to see it, because it would fatally hole your position.

Here's some more then. If it is "impossible to protect the vulnerable":

- why are we all subject to Covid health checks, prior to entering any healthcare?
- why are we subject to the same, or even excluded altogether, from visiting people in care homes?
- why can we not visit our parents / grandparents, unless they are in our bubble?

 

[Notch7]

Ryler was indeed wrong.
The average age (In England and wales) of a 'virus' victim isn't 82 years old.
It's actually 82.4 years old...

And 'bizarrely' it's now a higher age than the average age for deaths from other causes which is 81.5 years old...

Ryler is fundamentally wrong, it's a conflated argument

What Ryler should have said is "due to government intervention, Covid deaths were mostly limited to the very elderly"

 

[Brigadier]

Worth noting that was referencing vaccination.

I don't think many people disagree with that.

Also worth noting:

"Covid-19 is currently rarely fatal in children and young people, less so than influenza for which we already have a vaccine. Showing that a vaccine is safer than covid-19 in young people is, therefore, tough."

 

[Notch7]

You've gone from "It is impossible to protect the vulnerable", to "it is impossible to protect 2.5 million vulnerable

Please tell me where: "it is impossible to protect the vulnerable"
Has been quantified.

Point to the numbers I mentioned.

I did not.

When you look up " the vulnerable" 2.5 million is the figure.

So you are wrong