Matt Le Tissier is becoming the Morrissey of the football World with some bizarre views, he didn’t think the corona virus was a big issue at the beginning.
You’re fucking batshit crazy I can gather that from that post.
Barry, I suggest you either engage with @Saint-or-sinner on the points he’s raised in his post or simply ignore it.
Your response is only going to antagonise.
For the record, Harry, my ‘like’ was for the discussion about cheap rum and lime.
I’m going to move your post to its own thread. There’s a lot in it that would derail this thread.
Super dense.
Coronavirus - Alternative Theories
1 Like
This has been a really good watch if anyone has the time.
edit: subscribe to their page to watch under ‘videos’
1 Like
The big challenge we all have is how to prevent those who are infected but are never tested or ever show symptoms, infecting vulnerable people. There are two options here… what everyone has done so far (to more or less success), is the full lock down. The alternative, IF, (its a big ‘if’ whilst waiting for a suitable vaccine) is that we protect the vulnerable - so resources are focused on keeping those in care homes, hospitals, with underlying disease safe, - delivering food, etc whilst the rest of us carry on to maintain the economic stability. This approach can not work without a very strict application of resource and also process to support this solution… if there is any doubt that we would have such discipline, then future lockdowns are inevitable.
We also need to consider that a vaccine may not be found as we proceed with any course of action.
The trouble is there are so many unknowns about this virus or any new virus come to that. There are the generic “vulnerables” like age and infirmity but do we know enough about other groups to allow close mass gatherings. I think Premier League Football or other spectator events in packed stadiums is a looong way off.
1 Like
Will depend on sensitivity and effectiveness of the first developed vaccines… but in terms of assessing vulnerabilties, indeed there are many risk factors that still need to be identified. The more challenging and difficult question IMHO are going to be less about these scientific solutions, which will come… but with the moral dilemmas/decisions that we will have to eventually make, no matter how unpleasant they appear to be.
At some point with these things there is a risk threshold that needs to be assessed; the point at which we have to go back to ‘work as normal’ to avoid situations where we risk the health, subsistence etc of everyone - and this does include the economy… without revenue generating activities, we cant deliver the care, or services we need… vicious circle effect/paradox - It will inevitably mean that some folks will die from this with each seasonal outbreak, due to increased risk of infection, but as with the 600,000 who die in a bad flu year, what do we believe is an ‘acceptable’ number in order too maintain provision of food, water, services and care to all?
Its not a question I would feel comfortable answering
It’s basically an issue that our health system faces every day, but condensed and compressed into a single event. That’s what NICE are there for, to decide who gets what treatments after a cost/benefit analysis.
Not quite, NICE is there to assess the cost benefit of a product/therapy, and in which patient segments it provides most value/benefit, not directly who gets access to it, which is an important it subtle difference.
My point is more the moral one about - a time point in which the risk to the vulnerable will be outweighed by the risk to the many (to paraphrase spock)
You’re both wrong.
NICE is a biscuit.
5 Likes
These are enormous numbers with enormous consequences if the businesses and the people they employ don’t kick back in quickly when we open up again…