On 20/07/2020 01:03, wrote:
On Sunday, 19 July 2020 23:29:23 UTC+1, Brian Reay wrote:

I see estimates are being published (todays Telegraph) of the number of
deaths due to the Lockdown.

They dwarf the deaths due to the Chinese Virus and, roughly, equate to the
wildly exaggerated numbers Prof Pantsdown predicted to gain attention.

So, had followed the Swedish approach- as some suggested- at worst wed be
no worse off and, quite probably, better off- certainly in terms of the
economic impact plus wed have gained the herd immunity Sweden has.

Well done Prof Pantsdown, the Media, all those who demanded a Lockdown etc,
not to mention the panic buyers with their trolleys full of loo rolls.

Were it not so bloody tragic, Id be laughing and saying I told you so.

Herd immunity doesn't work, immunity is lost a few weeks post infection.


We don't know that. We also don't know if a second infection will be
milder. Also, the most severely infected die and hence don't get
reinfected.


Reality is when we went into lockdown no-one knew what was & wasn't necessary. It's becoming clearer now - and one thing is clear, what we need is not what we're getting. It seems at each turn politicians are slow at getting upto speed. They only want to act on near certainty, but that only means failure in a situation where data is limited & we need to act sooner on what's most probable.


I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

In article ,
Pancho wrote:
I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.

Which of course it will - eventually. But if it wipes out all your family
in the process, you might have preferred a better way?

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/07/2020 11:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.

Which of course it will - eventually. But if it wipes out all your family
in the process, you might have preferred a better way?

The 1918 flu seems to have gone away. Why is that I wonder?

--
Max Demian

On 21/07/2020 11:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.


I wasn't claiming to have an answer, I'm still very much in two minds. I
was just curious as to what Tabbypurr's answer was. I was curious as to
what probabilities Tabbypurr was referring to.

Which of course it will - eventually. But if it wipes out all your family
in the process, you might have preferred a better way?



This is silly hyperbole, it would be very unlikely to wipe out all my
family. The fatality rate for kids and young adults is extremely low.
Similar to the risk level of dying in a traffic accident, and yet we
don't ban cars.

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.

In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The honest version of what we are doing is... protecting some of the
elderly.

Then we failed miserably at that too.

--
*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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.

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

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

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.

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


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 21/07/2020 13:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The honest version of what we are doing is... protecting some of the
elderly.

Then we failed miserably at that too.


Captain Tom collected his knighthood from a 92-YO,
with her 99-YO husband close by.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 21/07/2020 13:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The honest version of what we are doing is... protecting some of the
elderly.

Then we failed miserably at that too.


Captain Tom collected his knighthood from a 92-YO,
with her 99-YO husband close by.

they were self-isolating

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

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.

Also protecting 4 million with diabetes and perhaps 10 million who are
obese and millions more with medical conditions that wouldn't benefit
from catching the virus.

It's possibly the appalling death rate in care homes because of NHS
policies that have skewed the figures giving the perception that maybe
it is a virus that only effects the old.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 11:41:42 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.

Which of course it will - eventually. But if it wipes out all your family
in the process, you might have preferred a better way?

Just make up a load of patent bs seems to be the left wing way

On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 13:01:32 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 21/07/2020 11:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:

I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.


I wasn't claiming to have an answer, I'm still very much in two minds. I
was just curious as to what Tabbypurr's answer was. I was curious as to
what probabilities Tabbypurr was referring to.

I follow the subject, I don't lead it so have nothing new to tell anyone. The way forward is surely to look at the research, assess how likely its conclusions are and follow what is most likely, subject to fairly assessing the benefits & downsides of each approach.

Governments aren't used to doing that & are clearly far from able or comfortable with it.

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency may have a major effect on Covid survival. It's not conclusive, it's not even 75% but it's, in my own estimate, over 50% likely. Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme, thus it makes sense for the NHS to give it to anyone admitted to hospital with possible COVID. But they don't. It also makes sense for the government to publicly state that there is some evidence, albeit no proof, that taking it may improve survival rate, and that it's worth taking. They don't..

There's also weaker evidence that other nutrients may make a difference. Again multivitamins are dirt cheap, supersafe and have side-benefits. It's silly to not take them.


Which of course it will - eventually. But if it wipes out all your family
in the process, you might have preferred a better way?



This is silly hyperbole


Dave usually is.


NT

On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 13:47:00 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:

The honest version of what we are doing is... protecting some of the
elderly.

Then we failed miserably at that too.

Shielding is working to protect the elderly.


*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *

Oil wells. Why babies are being put into wells I'm not so sure.

"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2020 11:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.


I wasn't claiming to have an answer, I'm still very much in two minds. I
was just curious as to what Tabbypurr's answer was. I was curious as to
what probabilities Tabbypurr was referring to.

Which of course it will - eventually. But if it wipes out all your family
in the process, you might have preferred a better way?



This is silly hyperbole, it would be very unlikely to wipe out all my
family. The fatality rate for kids and young adults is extremely low.
Similar to the risk level of dying in a traffic accident, and yet we don't
ban cars.

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.

We know it is given that sweden got a much worse
result than all the rest of scandinavia COMBINED.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
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.

Also protecting 4 million with diabetes and perhaps 10 million who are
obese and millions more with medical conditions that wouldn't benefit from
catching the virus.

It's possibly the appalling death rate in care homes because of NHS
policies that have skewed the figures giving the perception that maybe it
is a virus that only effects the old.

No its not because other countrys werent that stupid with care homes
and got the same result, that it is much more likely to kill the old.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:48:08 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 21/07/2020 19:16, wrote:

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency

. Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme,

But what if you haven't got a vitamin D deficiency - is it still safe?

Isn't too much vitamin D toxic and can do damage to the kidneys?

Is it advisable to take if on common prescription drugs for conditions
that rely on the the kidneys to be in good working order and for which
regular test for kidney function are performed?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:53:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

wrote:

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency may have a
major effect on Covid survival. It's not conclusive, it's not even 75%
but it's, in my own estimate, over 50% likely. Vitamin D is cheap & safe
in the extreme, thus it makes sense for the NHS to give it to anyone admitted
to hospital with possible COVID. But they don't. It also makes sense for
the government to publicly state that there is some evidence, albeit no
proof, that taking it may improve survival rate, and that it's worth taking.
They don't.

There's also weaker evidence that other nutrients may make a difference.
Again multivitamins are dirt cheap, supersafe and have side-benefits. It's
silly to not take them.

So lets take *everything* that every scientist and quack has suggested
might help. and end up fat and die from obesity.

--
Chris Green
·

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2020 19:16, wrote:

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency

. Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme,

But what if you haven't got a vitamin D deficiency - is it still safe?

Mostly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_toxicity

Isn't too much vitamin D toxic and can do damage to the kidneys?

Only at very high levels unless you have an existing medical problem.

Is it advisable to take if on common prescription drugs for conditions
that rely on the the kidneys to be in good working order and for which
regular test for kidney function are performed?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 07:15:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

alan_m wrote:
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.

Also protecting 4 million with diabetes and perhaps 10 million who are
obese and millions more with medical conditions that wouldn't benefit
from catching the virus.

It's possibly the appalling death rate in care homes because of NHS
policies that have skewed the figures giving the perception that maybe
it is a virus that only effects the old.

The ecologists said 50 years ago that we were overpopulated
with 4 billion worldwide. Why didn't our parents listen
to THOSE scientists? There are 5.8 million in the U.S.
with Alzheimer's dementia. Why do they need to be hangin'
around & don't even know what's happening?

David P Wrote in message:
alan_m wrote:
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.

Also protecting 4 million with diabetes and perhaps 10 million who are
obese and millions more with medical conditions that wouldn't benefit
from catching the virus.

It's possibly the appalling death rate in care homes because of NHS
policies that have skewed the figures giving the perception that maybe
it is a virus that only effects the old.

The ecologists said 50 years ago that we were overpopulated
with 4 billion worldwide. Why didn't our parents listen
to THOSE scientists? There are 5.8 million in the U.S.
with Alzheimer's dementia. Why do they need to be hangin'
around & don't even know what's happening?



oi! **** off & start your own thread!!
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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.

"David P" wrote in message
...
alan_m wrote:
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.

Also protecting 4 million with diabetes and perhaps 10 million who are
obese and millions more with medical conditions that wouldn't benefit
from catching the virus.

It's possibly the appalling death rate in care homes because of NHS
policies that have skewed the figures giving the perception that maybe
it is a virus that only effects the old.

The ecologists said 50 years ago that we were
overpopulated with 4 billion worldwide.

And they clearly got that wrong given
that we are doing fine with 7 billion.

Why didn't our parents listen to THOSE scientists?

Because it was obvious that they didnt have a ****ing
clue given that we no longer see famines anymore
except where the place has deteriorated into the worst
obscenitys of civil war and civil chaos or have let some
fool like Kim Jong Il rule the roost.

There are 5.8 million in the U.S.with Alzheimer's
dementia. Why do they need to be hangin'
around & don't even know what's happening?

Adolf ran the same line and killed them.

"Pancho" wrote in message
...
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% 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,

New Zealand, Taiwan and Vietnam all prove that wasnt.

it was just we didn't have enough knowledge to know that at the time.

New Zealand, Taiwan and Vietnam all prove that we did.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 20:03:53 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 21/07/2020 19:16, tabbypurr wrote:

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency

. Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme,

But what if you haven't got a vitamin D deficiency - is it still safe?

yes, hence I said safe in the extreme

Isn't too much vitamin D toxic and can do damage to the kidneys?

Is it advisable to take if on common prescription drugs for conditions
that rely on the the kidneys to be in good working order and for which
regular test for kidney function are performed?

D doesn't shut down kidneys. There's no reason to take excessive amounts that get into toxic/damage territory.


NT

On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 21:03:04 UTC+1, Chris Green wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency may have a
major effect on Covid survival. It's not conclusive, it's not even 75%
but it's, in my own estimate, over 50% likely. Vitamin D is cheap & safe
in the extreme, thus it makes sense for the NHS to give it to anyone admitted
to hospital with possible COVID. But they don't. It also makes sense for
the government to publicly state that there is some evidence, albeit no
proof, that taking it may improve survival rate, and that it's worth taking.
They don't.

There's also weaker evidence that other nutrients may make a difference.
Again multivitamins are dirt cheap, supersafe and have side-benefits. It's
silly to not take them.

So lets take *everything* that every scientist and quack has suggested
might help. and end up fat and die from obesity.

If you're entirely devoid of any ability to assess research or advice based on absence of it you might do that. But I would never recommend doing so.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 20:03:53 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 21/07/2020 19:16, tabbypurr wrote:

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency

. Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme,

But what if you haven't got a vitamin D deficiency - is it still safe?

yes, hence I said safe in the extreme

Isn't too much vitamin D toxic and can do damage to the kidneys?

Is it advisable to take if on common prescription drugs for conditions
that rely on the the kidneys to be in good working order and for which
regular test for kidney function are performed?

D doesn't shut down kidneys.

Wrong with the calcification of the kidneys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_toxicity

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:02:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:55:16 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:49:41 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard about senile Rodent:
"Rod Speed, a bare faced pig and ignorant ****."
MID:

On 21/07/2020 19:16, wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 13:01:32 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 21/07/2020 11:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:

I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.


I wasn't claiming to have an answer, I'm still very much in two minds. I
was just curious as to what Tabbypurr's answer was. I was curious as to
what probabilities Tabbypurr was referring to.

I follow the subject, I don't lead it so have nothing new to tell anyone. The way forward is surely to look at the research, assess how likely its conclusions are and follow what is most likely, subject to fairly assessing the benefits & downsides of each approach.

Governments aren't used to doing that & are clearly far from able or comfortable with it.


Well I'm not seeing that. I have watched Whitty and Vallance and they
appear competent. The Government appear to have made reasonable
decisions, perhaps not the best with hindsight, but reasonable.


As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency may have a major effect on Covid survival. It's not conclusive, it's not even 75% but it's, in my own estimate, over 50% likely.

What does 50% mean. Can you give us your calculation?

Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme, thus it makes sense for the NHS to give it to anyone admitted to hospital with possible COVID. But they don't.

Why does it make sense? Some Vitamin D supplements are prescription so I
presume there is some danger.

It also makes sense for the government to publicly state that there is some evidence, albeit no proof, that taking it may improve survival rate, and that it's worth taking. They don't.

Medical research has a problem with data dredging. People don't really
understand it. The think random correlations in data mean more than they
do. Even my GP practice nurse doesn't appear to know her arse from her
elbow with respect to "exciting" new research.


There's also weaker evidence that other nutrients may make a difference. Again multivitamins are dirt cheap, supersafe and have side-benefits. It's silly to not take them.


Yes I have heard the multivitamins argument for 40 years. I've not seen
strong research to support it.

On 22/07/2020 03:37, wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 20:03:53 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 21/07/2020 19:16, tabbypurr wrote:

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency

. Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme,

But what if you haven't got a vitamin D deficiency - is it still safe?

yes, hence I said safe in the extreme


In your expert medical opinion you suggest that all those admitted to
hospital with covid 19 should be given vitamin D supplements. This is
not happen so why do all the other medical experts in your peer group
actually treating these people disagree with you? Surely it is not
GOVERNMENT policy to prohibit doctors from doing what is good for their
patients?

Do you really want a Government to recommend all the quackery out there
especially at the moment when their credibility is so low. Start
recommending 101 different things that may, or may not, have a minimal
benefit and come a second wave the likelihood of anyone taking notice of
any further serious and necessary advice would be close to zero.

Perhaps we should all start taking anti-malaria drugs - and experience
the side effects of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache,
insomnia, vivid dreams, dizziness, loss of balance, and ringing in the
ear, acute anxiety, depression, restlessness, confusion, severe
dizziness, hallucinations etc. Maybe all of these are rare but in the
whole population a number greater than the covid deaths end up with very
serious side effects - just in case it may help.

In your expert opinion which cocktail of harmless drugs, supplements,
food stuffs etc. should be recommended.

Perhaps we should all start smoking to reduce the risk of catching Covid
19 AND ignore that if infected there is a greater risk of dying or
having other life changing outcomes. (depends on which study you read)

Perhaps the best advice a Government could do is to tell the 20% of the
population who are obese or serious overweight to lose the weight in
order to reduce the risk of a life changing event if catching the virus.
Perhaps they should introduce food ration cards to help with this, just
as a sensible precaution?




--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Pancho" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2020 19:16, wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 13:01:32 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 21/07/2020 11:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:

I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.


I wasn't claiming to have an answer, I'm still very much in two minds. I
was just curious as to what Tabbypurr's answer was. I was curious as to
what probabilities Tabbypurr was referring to.

I follow the subject, I don't lead it so have nothing new to tell anyone.
The way forward is surely to look at the research, assess how likely its
conclusions are and follow what is most likely, subject to fairly
assessing the benefits & downsides of each approach.

Governments aren't used to doing that & are clearly far from able or
comfortable with it.


Well I'm not seeing that. I have watched Whitty and Vallance and they
appear competent. The Government appear to have made reasonable decisions,
perhaps not the best with hindsight, but reasonable.

Not with the stupid choice of not requiring those who come
into the country to quarantine they didnt until just recently.

And now with the even more stupid decision to encourage
the use of pubs and restaurants with a lower VAT for those.

As one example, there is evidence that vitamin D deficiency may have a
major effect on Covid survival. It's not conclusive, it's not even 75%
but it's, in my own estimate, over 50% likely.

What does 50% mean. Can you give us your calculation?

Vitamin D is cheap & safe in the extreme, thus it makes sense for the NHS
to give it to anyone admitted to hospital with possible COVID. But they
don't.

Why does it make sense? Some Vitamin D supplements are prescription so I
presume there is some danger.

It also makes sense for the government to publicly state that there is
some evidence, albeit no proof, that taking it may improve survival rate,
and that it's worth taking. They don't.

Medical research has a problem with data dredging. People don't really
understand it. The think random correlations in data mean more than they
do. Even my GP practice nurse doesn't appear to know her arse from her
elbow with respect to "exciting" new research.


There's also weaker evidence that other nutrients may make a difference.
Again multivitamins are dirt cheap, supersafe and have side-benefits.
It's silly to not take them.


Yes I have heard the multivitamins argument for 40 years. I've not seen
strong research to support it.

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On 22/07/2020 10:32, alan_m wrote:
Perhaps we should all start taking anti-malaria drugs - and experience
the side effects of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache,
insomnia, vivid dreams, dizziness, loss of balance, and ringing in the
ear, acute anxiety, depression, restlessness, confusion, severe
dizziness, hallucinations etc.

Golly, and I thought it was just old age. Maybe I'll stop drinking gin
and tonic.


--
€œProgress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,€�

€“ Ludwig von Mises

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/07/2020 10:32, alan_m wrote:
Perhaps we should all start taking anti-malaria drugs - and experience
the side effects of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache,
insomnia, vivid dreams, dizziness, loss of balance, and ringing in the
ear, acute anxiety, depression, restlessness, confusion, severe
dizziness, hallucinations etc.

Golly, and I thought it was just old age. Maybe I'll stop drinking gin
and tonic.

just ease off on the tonic

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 11:41:42 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
I still don't know what is and isn't necessary.

Perhaps if you told us what we need to do, things would be clearer.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems to be the right wing view.

Which of course it will - eventually. But if it wipes out all your family
in the process, you might have preferred a better way?

Just make up a load of patent bs seems to be the left wing way

You must be a very staunch Tory to defend the way this government has
handled things. Given they could hardly have done worse.

--
*If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 13:47:00 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:

The honest version of what we are doing is... protecting some of the
elderly.

Then we failed miserably at that too.

Shielding is working to protect the elderly.

Bit late in the day?

It was well enough known the elderly and infirm were going to be hit
hardest. And those in residential care - the hardest hit - are also the
easiest to shield.

But carry on making excuses for your masters. Someone has to.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/07/2020 14:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:



You must be a very staunch Tory to defend the way this government has
handled things. Given they could hardly have done worse.


I think we are all relieved that we didn't get Corbyn in charge.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk