On 21/07/2020 13:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/07/2020 13:00, Pancho wrote:
The honest version of what we are doing is... protecting some of the
elderly. This is being done at a huge cost. I know some of the young
people in my family resent this. As do people like Brian Reay, I
disagree with some of Brian's argument, but I'm not sure his
conclusion is wrong.

I don't think that is the case. What we are doing is keeping a lethal
disease somewhere in sub-lethal concentrations. And, given evidence is
emerging of long term damage even if you recover, preserving life
quality for the young as they age.


I assume you meant something like impairing, restricting, limiting or
damaging life quality rather than preserving.

If I were to say that catching Covid 19 is like smoking 60 a day for 10
years....???


You can say it. I hope it isn't true, because it looks as if a lower
limit of 17% of Londoners were infected.

There is far too much simplistic binary thinking. x% chance of catching
it, y% chance of dying and if not then its 100%Â* OK.


Yes, I get that, I remember friends and relatives damaged by childhood
disease.

Firstly the more there is the more likely you are to catch it BAD.
Secondly the worse you get it the more likely you are to die or suffer
long term or permanent damage.


But very few young people get it. I suspect people who are asymptomatic
aren't significantly damaged in the long term.

The viral Load argument is more applicable to doctors than general rapid
spread in the community.


I think we just about got away with something that could have brought
the nation to its knees, and that lockdown was 100% justified.


Because young people are largely unaffected, the consequences would have
played out largely in hospitals and care homes, grim, but not nationally
catastrophic.

I would have shut down even earlier than the government, based upon
precaution, but I strongly suspect it would have been better not to, it
was just we didn't have enough knowledge to know that at the time.