Covid19 Part XVII-24,841 in ROI (1,639 deaths) 4,679 in NI (518 deaths)(28/05)Read OP

Boggles wrote: »

He is not an epidemiologist.

Another Kook trying to make himself relevant.

growleaves wrote: »

I didn't say he 'held the title of professor at Rockefeller'.

He had an academic career at the University of Tübingen and worked with Klaus Dietz for 15 years before heading up the department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at Rockefeller. It appears he may not be an epidemologist himself, he just worked closely with epidemiologists for 35 years.

Perhaps you can argue against his points using your own vast knowledge instead of irrelevant name-calling.

podgeandrodge wrote: »

The varying opinions on this virus on here, and everywhere else, are testament to the fact that people really all have different perspectives on things, of which I think are a lot down to their personal risk tolerances. Some of us, it would appear, would gladly lock ourselves away, dettol the shopping deliveries, and don a hazmat suit (not referring to posters above) in an effort to avoid this virus, even if they are relatively young with no underlying conditions. They will gladly forgo attempts to return to a normal life because, for them, avoidance of this virus is the no. 1 priority above all else.

If you take a different approach they will say 'It's not about you, it's about protecting the vulnerable other people' - so you are painted as an absolute príck then if you adopt a more rational approach.

Other people, with more tolerance of 'risk', will take a more 'pragmatic' approach to this virus. They will change their behaviours according to health advice in general, while making a personal judgement about the risks - e.g. at the current time, they will accept that current community transmission of the virus is practically zero, and taking walks and doing a bit of shopping is highly unlikely to result in your contracting the virus. And even if it does, you'll likely get over it.

But again, they will be told 'you could be asymptomatic, and spreading it to the old and vulnerable, so you're a príck'. But most of the older and vulnerable aren't around you in the lockdown anyway as they should be cocooning.

The 'lockdown' was never about eradicating the virus and preventing the paranoid from ever contracting it. It was about levelling things to allow the health system cope. It's my view that even when we get to August, if things turned out to be exactly the same as where they are right now, lockdown will ultimately cease - because life HAS TO go on.

Measures to protect the elderly and vulnerable will have to be taken but these will be measures that ultimately do not impact the younger and less vulnerable. Society has to live with the virus for now. Sure, when lockdown is eased, and when businesses where people congregate re-open, masks may be part of the solution, along with common sense hands washing. And public transport, when large numbers being to re-use it, will likely look for masks too.




I agree with above for what it's worth. And many others do too.

One of Britain’s leading doctors has said a New York study showing more than half of coronavirus patients in hospital had been staying at home suggests the UK should relax its lockdown more quickly.

Prof. Sikora, Dean of the University of Buckingham's medical school said the study appeared to show that lockdowns were only “of limited use”.

He said: “It is fascinating that it doesn’t seem to matter if you’re locked down or not. These people were locked down, but have a high rate of hospital admissions.

“Lock down is only of limited use. The risk factors for Covid are age, illness and ethnicity. These have more impact on what you’re going to get and if you’re going to be hospitalised than if you are out and about as normal.
"The community I serve is poor. Most work in ‘essential,’ low-paying jobs where distancing isn’t easy. Nevertheless, the wave passed over us, peaked and subsided.

“The way this transpired tells me the ebb and flow had more to do with the natural course of the outbreak than it did with the lockdown,” he said.



Anyway, back to my original point - some of us are paranoid about this and want current measures, notwithstanding the near disastrous economic impact, to be augmented. Others will want to wear masks on the street, in their cars and in their bedrooms, and will say it's to protect others, not themselves.
Others will say, hey, most people arent' getting the virus, and most of those who do will survive. Society has to accept the existence of the virus and live with it, and I can go for a walk without worrying about passers by. Unless, of course, they are joggers!

Sure isn't it really just like the flu anyway