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

151–160 of 231 posts

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#151

Post by twoslide »

Veen wrote: post #14
twoslide wrote: post #3

One of the things that irritates me most is that Boris portrays the variant as a kind random piece of bad luck. Don't know much about genetics, but I guess such a variant becomes more likely when there are many infections (more of the virus to mutate), and the strategy has consistently been to run things "hot" and tolerate high case counts.

> Boris portrays the variant as a kind random piece of bad luck That's pretty much the definition of a mutation.

Yes, but you have a lot more chances to have the bad luck if the virus is spread widely

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#152

Post by Silhouette »

qeternity wrote: post #143
Silhouette wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55430397

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-...

Etc.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#153

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #149
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

"Harmful to society" is a poor standard used to justify a lot of evil stuff. That standard once included homosexuality. It was the basis for eugenics. Also like I mentioned before - Prohibition. It's a standard that's ultimately subjective and self-deceiving.

You're arguing that we should outlaw something that's vital to human life. Social interaction.

Violence, on the other hand, is clearly not necessary or virtuous.

Isolation is a form of punishment and I hope you're not saying that we all must be punished for the greater good and any dissent is evil. That's borderline cultish.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#154

Post by FartyMcFarter »

qeternity wrote: post #136
rusk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get a bad dose and you can’t get a respirator you’re in big trouble. Guess what happens when there are so many sick that respirators run out. What happens when hospitals are overrun with patients with ‘mild’ symptoms? We’ve been talking about this for nine months and you’re still at the marginal deaths stage of reasoning. Do you need a picture drawn for you or something?

Brilliant logic there. And if I cross the street, I might get hit by a bus. Let's ban cars. You seem to be struggling that this is a hugely complex situation that might call for slightly more sophisticated logic than you're apparently capable of. > What happens when hospitals are overrun with patients with ‘mild’ symptoms? Um wow tough one. Maybe prioritize severe cases like we have been doing for the past 9 months w…

> the Nightingale covid hospitals have never been used...

Because there's no staff to use them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55413831

> "We are already 'diluting' our skilled ICU nursing staff with less-well-trained volunteers."

> As well as staffing, some have argued there is just not the equipment available to treat the sickest patients

> "In some there are not even appropriate toilet facilities. They were built in a rush because we were desperate."

Based on that info, my guess is these hospitals will only be used as a very last resort, possibly staffed with vets or NHS staff moved from elsewhere in the country for a short period... This is not a scenario that we should encourage or count on.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#155

Post by JohnCohorn »

djsumdog wrote: post #144
JohnCohorn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 misleadin…

Sure cases as a metric has been overemphasized and unnecessarily increases fear. But the fact that that metric isn’t ideally measured or presented shouldn’t take away from the fact that the metrics that are most critical like hospital capacity are getting to frightening levels right now .

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#156

Post by cygx »

qeternity wrote: post #130
cygx wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the fact that Belgium is one of the worst affected countries, I'm not even sure what you're arguing? Belgium is the prototype for what would happen elsewhere if you're just a bit less successful at getting a handle on the pandemic. Did I suggest that I want out healthcare to be overwhelmed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing for a lessening of restrictions for the general public, right now.…

> Correct me if I'm wrong ... > I realize this might come close to violating (or even cross the line of) HN guidelines, but that's how I see it. Ok, you're wrong. And worst of all, you've decided that anyone who doesn't share your exact opinion is insane. No wonder you've got it so wrong, you've cut yourself off from any real discussion. What I argued was that lockdowns don't work. We have done serious lockdowns acro…

What I argued was that lockdowns don't work.

Depends on which studies you trust. I've read a few, and my conclusion back then was that they do work. However, I've not kept up with the debate once I came to that conclusion, so maybe I shouldn't have phrased things quite as strongly as I did. If you have a recommendation for a single study that makes a particularly strong case against lockdowns, feel free to link it.

Looking for more recent results just now, I found [1], analyzing the differences in response of US states. It seems to suggests that as a general rule, the stronger the restrictions, the smaller the case growth, which would have been my null hypothesis anyway. Cf. https://i.imgur.com/kLfSs6W.png

I do agree that we do not yet know the effectiveness of any particular measure. It would be nice if we knew better, but experimenting with extinguishing agents while your house is on fire is too risky for my taste.

[1] https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/BSG-WP-...

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#157

Post by Bailin »

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,…

You've made a lot of comments and mentioned many numbers and statistics, but I've yet to see any sources linked. Could you add them?

And please don't say something like "do your own research," that doesn't help the conversation at all.

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#158

Post by [deleted] »

qeternity wrote: post #134
Daishiman wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 13% higher in England, which yes, I would characterize as vast.

I'm not sure you understand how excess mortality works. Excess mortality right now during the winter period is higher...it always is. And 13% is not panic numbers. Would you be surprised to learn that the 17/18 flu season resulted in more excess deaths than we are having right now? Surely you must have been freaking out then as well advocating for national lockdowns...right?

[deleted]

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#159

Post by qubitcoder »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #153
jasonlaramburu wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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).

"Harmful to society" is a poor standard used to justify a lot of evil stuff. That standard once included homosexuality. It was the basis for eugenics. Also like I mentioned before - Prohibition. It's a standard that's ultimately subjective and self-deceiving. You're arguing that we should outlaw something that's vital to human life. Social interaction. Violence, on the other hand, is clearly not necessary or virtuous…

Have you considered that these measures are _temporary_? If people shared the same ideas about sacrifice, the United States would've never prevailed in WWII. Personally, it seems like objections to basic preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, are more rooted in ego and entitlement. And that is often coupled with spurious ideas about government overreach (which, while sometimes valid, isn't exactly a cogent argument in the United States, where shared ideals on liberty and limited government are so deeply ingrained).

Re: Covid: New lockdown for England as cases surge

#160

Post by ubercow13 »

jeofken wrote: post #78
f6v wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, lockdown parties are a basic human right.

Agreed. No man has the right to violently hinder free people from living free. My body is my property and not the property of the state.

Any state on the planet will violently hinder their people from doing certain things, that one of the jobs of most police forces. Often it's to protect the rights of other 'free people' in the population.
Post reply on HN