Carlton Supporters Club
CV and mad panic behaviour - Printable Version

+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: CV and mad panic behaviour (/thread-4651.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 12:21 AM)ElwoodBlues1 date Wrote:High Vaccination rates are no panacea to success, Israel and England are already in booster shot mode and Scomo is going to have to explain to the public that 60 deaths a week will be normal if you go by the Doherty
modelling.. The South African variant is worse than Delta from what I have read and will require the vaccines being tweaked.
Gladys might open up NSW but there is no way, Dan, WA, Qld will do same IMHO..
[member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member] Agreed.

The booster shots are more about controlling exploding health cost by minimising acute symptoms requiring hospitalisation, a thousand vaccine shots are so much cheaper than even one individual person spending an afternoon in a hospital bed.

The deaths being recorded now in Israel and the UK are now largely in the unvaccinated population, I saw some figures last week that suggests current UK COVID-19 deaths are now 98% unvaccinated and 2% breakthrough vaccinated. But this is just a reality of math when the bulk of the population become vaccinated and restrictions are removed for everybody.

After lockdown, the effect of Sars-CoV-2 is minimised in the vaccinated, and at the same time the effect of Sars-CoV-2 is amplified in the unvaccinated because the virus has become ubiquitous in free people everywhere.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - shawny - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 12:21 AM)LP link Wrote:Isn't the problem that it is being spread by people who either refuse to adhere to restrictions and social distancing, or for whatever reason cannot adhere to those restrictions?

So what hope do we have LP? 

You are never ever ever going to get full and total adhering of every rule by every single person in the community. And if it only take a hand full of people out of 6mil to cause it to fail it means the plan is not feasible and it has 0% of success.

Hence why I said we better stop listening to the carrot danglers in power and admit we are living like this for a very very very long time as we have no credible plan to work to.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 12:12 AM)shawny date Wrote:So I'm curious LP as you seem to be very knowledgeable on this topic based on the about of posts. Are you happy with how this is being handled by those we have to adhere to?

If you were leading this state what's the plan?
I'm not particularly knowledgably of the epidemiology I just accept what the scientific consensus coming from real scientists, and largely ignore the radical spin applied to points cherry-picked from reports and data by critics like Sky News or Facebook Experts.

The first really hard step that hasn't even happened yet is making vaccination compulsory for anybody eligible to get it, but it is political and mental health poison so it will only ever happen as a last ditch solution.

God help us if we get a variant that looks deadly to children, anarchy will pursue because the governments will without hesitation make vaccination compulsory and the self-entitled denialists will become radical extremists in their refusal.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 12:40 AM)shawny date Wrote:So what hope do we have LP? 

You are never ever ever going to get full and total adhering of every rule by every single person in the community. And if it only take a hand full of people out of 6mil to cause it to fail it means the plan is not feasible and it has 0% of success.

Hence why I said we better stop listening to the carrot danglers in power and admit we are living like this for a very very very long time as we have no credible plan to work to.
It's a position of ignorance, because like the politician, and the scientist, nobody including you or me knows what is next step in the evolution of Sars-CoV-2.

That "handful" you refer to is a huge assumption, you assume it's not one of yours, you assume it's old people, you assume there are no other significant long term health costs, which ultimately cost every one physically or economically!

I've heard estimates that the long term economic cost, that the big dollars of ongoing COVID-19, could be as high as 6x the total cost of the epidemic in the short term!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 09-02-2021

Given there'll be pressure on hospitals to cope with Covid-related admissions, I would fully support ethical rules regarding access being amended so the unvaccinated are at the end of the queue.  By unvaccinated, I mean those who were eligible for vaccination (excluding those who had a legitimate medical reason for their failure to vaccinate). Doctors and nurses have gnashed their teeth over anti-vaxxers in the US receiving double-lung transplants when Covid catches up with them. If you have to choose who gets beds and who is sent home, their vaccination status should be a prime criterion.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 12:58 AM)Mav date Wrote:Given there'll be pressure on hospitals to cope with Covid-related admissions, I would fully support ethical rules regarding access being amended so the unvaccinated are at the end of the queue.  By unvaccinated, I mean those who were eligible for vaccination (excluding those who had a legitimate medical reason for their failure to vaccinate). Doctors and nurses have gnashed their teeth over anti-vaxxers in the US receiving double-lung transplants when Covid catches up with them. If you have to choose who gets beds and who is sent home, their vaccination status should be a prime criterion.
I understand this position but I'm not sure I'd agree, it sends a society down a specific path that is not based on social equity, to me the ultimate path of this direction becomes health care for the wealthy.

Why do I think that?

Because access to something like acute health care will depend on a status, and the cost of achieving that status will rise as a defacto form of regulation, just purely based on market forces. There will always be some better level of care available to the wealthy, and that will mean they end up at the front of the queue as the best candidate for such procedures.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 09-02-2021

AFAIK, variations on this already occur. Whether someone is willing to give us smoking affects eligibility for transplants and the like (I stand to be corrected on this).

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - kruddler - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 12:40 AM)shawny link Wrote:So what hope do we have LP? 

You are never ever ever going to get full and total adhering of every rule by every single person in the community. And if it only take a hand full of people out of 6mil to cause it to fail it means the plan is not feasible and it has 0% of success.

Hence why I said we better stop listening to the carrot danglers in power and admit we are living like this for a very very very long time as we have no credible plan to work to.

I've been saying since our very first lockdown, the biggest problem our government has is that it trusts the people to do the right thing.

Now they've done their best to try and achieve this, but you will never get it. Thats why they 'dangle the carrot' because its a way of keeping more people in line in the hope of eliminating this.

If the government says, 2 months of lockdown, people lose their $h!t and don't follow the rules from day 1.
If the government says 2 weeks, and then.....2 weeks and then....2 weeks...etc. People are more able to cope "its only just 2 weeks"

However, we are getting to the 'boy who cried wolf' side of things and its no longer working.

A new strategy needs to be put in place....somehow....to try and curb this before its too late.


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 01:06 AM)Mav date Wrote:AFAIK, variations on this already occur. Whether someone is willing to give us smoking affects eligibility for transplants and the like (I stand to be corrected on this).
Yes this is true.

But I'd argue that is not a variation on the same concept, smoking is relatively free and ubiquitous being equally available to both poor and wealthy.

The fear I have is that the ultimate selection of candidates for health care would be favoured or influenced by some highly expensive treatment that was beyond the reach of the average person.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - shawny - 09-02-2021

(09-02-2021, 12:58 AM)Mav link Wrote:Given there'll be pressure on hospitals to cope with Covid-related admissions, I would fully support ethical rules regarding access being amended so the unvaccinated are at the end of the queue.  By unvaccinated, I mean those who were eligible for vaccination (excluding those who had a legitimate medical reason for their failure to vaccinate). Doctors and nurses have gnashed their teeth over anti-vaxxers in the US receiving double-lung transplants when Covid catches up with them. If you have to choose who gets beds and who is sent home, their vaccination status should be a prime criterion.

Right so if thats your thinking im guessing you would also be fine with if you are over the ideal weight range and now need heart bi-pass surgery you will happily go to back and let all those young, fit people patients ahead of you? 

What if you smoked 20 years ago and now need lung cancer treatment your fine to go to the back behind all those who never smoked.

If you drink and require treatment to your liver or a related organ you go behind all those who never touched the bottle.

What about melanoma - if you sunbaked or went in a solarium you go to the back over a young person with fair skin that has never seen the sun? 

And if you're a diabetic and overweight....  sorry mate back of the line as there is young fit people who care for their body well ahead of your sorry self. 

I could go on and on.

Majority of us will fit into one of these categories and easy to make these rules about a topic that suits you but are you also happy to apply similar thinking across all health matters even when you will be at the back of the queue? 

Be honest now.....