Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 231 posts

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#141

Post by djsumdog »

f6v wrote: post #100
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? This is non-sequitur. A better comparison is like legally enforcing abstinence to eradicate HIV. If you can't get the idea that isolation is counter-intuitive to humans and damaging to their health and psychology, and therefore bound to be hard to get compliance, I'm not sure what to say. This is why jail is jail. Isolation…

Individual’s comfort can’t be a number one priority in a times of crisis. Sitting at home in a digital age when video calling anyone in the world is absolutely free, it’s the least you can do. Also all the entertainment which is available nowadays. How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? > isolation is counter-intuitive to humans 20 million cities are counterintuitive, and so…

Tell that to my best friend in the UK who's Italian flatmate committed suicide back in March.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#142

Post by qeternity »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #125
qeternity wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, even better, talk to anyone who works in a front-line NHS role, particularly in areas like A&E/intensive care. People who understand the context of the statistics and how they translate to real standards of patient care do not think everything is OK right now. Yeah I know that, my best mates girlfriend is a doctor. But that's not at all proof of anything. There is a reason that wars aren't planned and architect…

So if the foot soldier in the trench keeps complaining that they don't have enough bullets, and saying that without bullets they can't fight and will loose the battle, they shouldn't be listened to? I think they are exactly the ones we should be listening to.

No, you give them more bullets. If the NHS says they need more supplies, then give it to them.

But you don't listen to the foot soldier when they tell you how you should position your troops. And that's exactly what you're suggesting.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#143

Post by qeternity »

Silhouette wrote: post #128
qeternity wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, even better, talk to anyone who works in a front-line NHS role, particularly in areas like A&E/intensive care. People who understand the context of the statistics and how they translate to real standards of patient care do not think everything is OK right now. Yeah I know that, my best mates girlfriend is a doctor. But that's not at all proof of anything. There is a reason that wars aren't planned and architect…

But that's not at all proof of anything. Do you realise that in two successive comments, you have literally just claimed that hospitals are not really filling up, then claimed that reports from front-line staff working in those hospitals don't prove anything? There is a reason that wars aren't planned and architected by the foot soldier in the trench. They don't have perspective and the task at hand detracts from the…

> Do you realise that in two successive comments, you have literally just claimed that hospitals are not really filling up, then claimed that reports from front-line staff working in those hospitals don't prove anything?

Um, what? That's exactly right. Hospitals are not filling up. The NHS own data shows this. The fact that doctors think the hospitals are filling up is irrelevant. People's estimates of things are notoriously incorrect, especially when they are under pressure. I'm not sure what you've taken issue with.

Are you disputing the NHS data that hospitals are not filling up?

> There is a reason for the saying that an army is run by its sergeants. All the plans made by generals aren't worth squat if you don't have boots on the ground who know what they're doing to implement those plans.

Right, Sergents run the implementation, not the planning. What we are talking about is the planning. But the bigger issue with this logic is that this isn't a medical plan. It's a social one. The people who should develop a strategy around a global pandemic are not the same people who intubate the casualties of said pandemic. It's like asking a car mechanic how we should build safer roads...they're just not the same thing.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#144

Post by djsumdog »

JohnCohorn wrote: post #138
djsumdog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is complete and total arbitrary nonsense. You're taking a conclusion and trying to walk back a path of logic to some type of justification. Let's see this for what it is: arbitrary decisions that curtails the human rights of all human beings by politicians who are figuratively drunk with power. They are banning things for the common people while they leave their regions, have expensive $1k dinners for their poli…

Hypocrisy of elected officials following measures doesn’t imply that the measures they’re imposing aren’t needed. I agree there have been elements of mass hysteria in this thing, but at the moment we have real and present reasons for hysteria to be appropriate. The number of cases we have at once is overwhelming hospital capacity in many regions and all signs point to it getting much worse over the next month.

> The number of cases

Please research PCR and the amplification cycles. Right now most tests are using over 40 cycles and it's causing a lot of false positives. Cases should never be the number to use, fatalities should (and even then many people get marked for COVID deaths because they test positive yet die of something unrelated).

The way PCR is being used is insane and a lot of the numbers are just plain misleading to increase the amount of fear.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#145

Post by jeofken »

flagrant wrote: post #132
jeofken wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the part we are disagreeing about what “not _yet_ showing any change” means? I doubt hospitals have ten thousand deaths which they procrastinated reporting. More likely the author meant that November and December is not yet counted, and therefore must add the “yet” to the sentence. As you say, [0] states that a slightly larger than average number of deaths occurred during Q2, and a smaller number during Q3. It may…

> Is the part we are disagreeing about what “not _yet_ showing any change” means? No, it's the meaning of the entire statement. Your translation means "coronavirus did not result in an increase in deaths in 2020", whereas my translation means "the spread of coronavirus may be wider than the number of excess deaths in 2020 indicates". The meaning is wholly different, it is saying something orthogonal to the point you…

> Your translation means "coronavirus did not result in an increase in deaths in 2020"

That’s simply a lie - you are deliberately taking the “yet” out and replacing “showing” with “result”, which indicates total certainty, from my translation. I am not editing comments earlier in this thread FYI, you know I translated it correctly. “Ännu” means “yet” and “visar” means “showing/shows”. I encourage non-Scandinavians to Deepl translate it; language barriers don’t exist in our age due to machine translation.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#146

Post by iso1210 »

qeternity wrote: post #11

In the UK, 95% of the deaths are people over 60. There are more deaths for people over 90 than under 70. When are we going to start putting all these efforts and resources into focusing on the vulnerable populations and not painting with a broad brush. We know that lockdowns are too blunt an instrument which is why most of Europe is having to engage in ever more draconian measures. We are mortgaging our future here,…

> When are we going to start putting all these efforts and resources into focusing on the vulnerable populations and not painting with a broad brush.

We have been. That's why the vaccine is going out to them first.

We have too many people in hospital. Even if all spreading stopped right this second, the number of people going into hospital will continue to increase for another 2 weeks. This is the busiest time of year for hospitals, and we already have more covid paitents than we did in April.

If my child needs an ICU bed, I want one available, I don't want it filled with 80 year old covid patients.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#147

Post by edoceo »

rusk wrote: post #55
edoceo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If England stopped football there'd be riots the next day.

You do realise that England stopped football before even the government got their shiz together?

Clearly I did not. Been a lot to keep up with last few months.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#148

Post by matz1 »

f6v wrote: post #100
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? This is non-sequitur. A better comparison is like legally enforcing abstinence to eradicate HIV. If you can't get the idea that isolation is counter-intuitive to humans and damaging to their health and psychology, and therefore bound to be hard to get compliance, I'm not sure what to say. This is why jail is jail. Isolation…

Individual’s comfort can’t be a number one priority in a times of crisis. Sitting at home in a digital age when video calling anyone in the world is absolutely free, it’s the least you can do. Also all the entertainment which is available nowadays. How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? > isolation is counter-intuitive to humans 20 million cities are counterintuitive, and so…

As if grandma even want to be in isolation in the first place.

My grandma would rather took the small risk of dying of covid to go outside, socialize with their friends and family.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#149

Post by jasonlaramburu »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #102
f6v wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individual’s comfort can’t be a number one priority in a times of crisis. Sitting at home in a digital age when video calling anyone in the world is absolutely free, it’s the least you can do. Also all the entertainment which is available nowadays. How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? > isolation is counter-intuitive to humans 20 million cities are counterintuitive, and so…

> How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? This is where things go wrong. You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts to socialize. As though it's selfish to not want to be locked in your house indefinitely. There is a striking resemblance here of the tactics used by abusers and emotional manipulators. > But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s defi…

>You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts

There are many 'natural' human instincts that are harmful to society and are either strongly discouraged or outlawed (violence, drug abuse, overeating to name a few).

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#150

Post by jeofken »

0xffff2 wrote: post #135
djsumdog wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gathering is a basic human right: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There is no reason stated. There is no exception for "virus." Human rights laws were not written for fair weather…

Quoting the US constitution in a thread about the UK doesn't make much sense. Is there a similar legal doctrine in the UK?

Our natural rights are God-given and true since all men are equal children of creation, and thus no man has the right to stand above any other and deny them their right to speech or to gather.

I am the property of myself and have the sole right of ownership - not anyone employed by the state.

This was worded well by the writers of the American constitution, but the idea is as old as time - it’s the idea of universalist ethics.

Post reply on HN