Update: All EWS Zermatt COVID Tests Returned Negative Results
We’ve received good news from the EWS this afternoon as all 3 of the people quarantined in Zermatt have returned negative test results for COVID-19. As we reported yesterday, there was one suspected case but three people were quarantined and tested as they had been working in close proximity to each other.
 | The Enduro World Series and Traillove can confirm that all Covid tests carried out in Zermatt returned negative results. |
Those affected can now leave quarantine and rejoin the peloton bubble that has been formed in the EWS pits.
We again commend the EWS and Traillove on their quick response to the potential infection and it's great to see the COVID safety measures acting as intended.
Original Story
Three people are currently quarantining in Zermatt due to a potential COVID-19 infection. The three people are connected to this weekend's Enduro World Series race but reportedly are not racers.
Traillove, the event organisers, and the EWS were made aware of the potential cases and initiated containment policies immediately. Riders and teams have been informed and now the bubble system and contact tracing have begun as outlined in their Covid-19 Measures and Safety Protocol.
The three individuals have been tested and will remain quarantined until the results are returned. As it stands no riders have been affected and there is no suggestion that the event will be cancelled. The Traillove and EWS statement is below:
Press Statement: EWS & Traillove
The Enduro World Series and Traillove Zermatt was made aware of a potential Coronavirus case at the event in Zermatt and as a result three individuals are now isolating pending test results. No riders are affected. The bubble system and contact tracing policies in effect at the event mean the situation has been contained.
The Enduro World Series and Traillove Zermatt was made aware of a potential Coronavirus case at the event in Zermatt and as a result three individuals are now isolating pending test results. No riders are affected. The bubble system and contact tracing policies in effect at the event mean the situation has been contained.
We want to see racing back as badly as anyone, but we urge race organizers and teams to use an abundance of caution. We commend the EWS and Traillove on their quick response to the potential infection. If the cases are confirmed, we wish a quick recovery to the individuals affected.
A note on the comments
COVID-19 is a serious global health risk, and while we don't want to limit the conversation we're going to actively remove disinformation and suspend people who continue to post it.
COVID-19 is a serious global health risk, and while we don't want to limit the conversation we're going to actively remove disinformation and suspend people who continue to post it.
Author Info:
Member since Nov 14, 2018
Must Read This Week
What-a you t'ink you do, why you look-a so sad?
It's-a not so bad, it's-a nice-a place
Ah shaddap-a you face!
Oh dear !
NAAHHHHHH it'll be fiiiiiine
Just let the virus roam, like we used to do with influenza.
Yes some people will die, but they would probably pass away very soon anyway.
Quality of life will go back to normal again.
And less people will die from fear or from becoming homeless.
Almost everyone wins!
- Covid is more contagious than the influenza
- Covid is significantly more deadly than the influenza
- There real and significant long term complications for many people who don't die from it and we are still learning about what those are
- That there is an unprecedented worldwide effort taking place to come up with vaccines, antivirals and other treatment strategies
- We should be doing all we can in the meanwhile to mitigate the spread of the disease to keep ourselves and those around us safe and that we already know what we need to do in order to accomplish that.
Over a pinkbike random who clearly doesn't know the first thing about viral transmission or severity or treatment or anything really. But that's just me.
How does your opinion change with the knowledge that flu killed more than coronavirus over a given period in the uk (I think it was around a week ago, over a 7 day period)
If a vaccine never comes, or if it does but it isn’t nearly as effective as hoped (such as flu, again as above) would you suggest we adhere to these measures for the foreseeable future?
It’s almost become a dirty thing to debate any of this now, just accept and move on.
It's not a game. You don't debate with a virus, you're gonna lose.
I hate to quote the sun but - www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/health-news/12374033/more-die-flu-coronavirus-seven-weeks/amp
I am talking about following the rules respectfully, understanding that risks and adjusting accordingly but having the mental ability to still allow some discussion over the matter. I am sorry to hear about your father btw and hope he makes a full recovery
All i suggested is that the hope of a vaccine may be unfounded, many share this view and questioned the management of this whole situation, which takes in a whole spectrum of view points such as economics, social science and management, politics etc
Stop being so binary. I’m not an anti vaccine trump loving degenerate, It’s not ‘dumb’ to discuss things.
I am not even sure what you're proposing. Do you not think scientists adjust and reflect their recommendations based on the best available data/information? Do you not think the disease control experts weight various factors and risks on a regular basis to adjust their advice? This is literally the thing that they train for. The governments that headed their advice and leaned on their expertise are looking much better these days than those who played it down or went for the unorthodox herd immunity approach.
What I am questioning is how we move forward, is a vaccine a plausible way out? If not, what? Should measures be as contradictory e.g. uk quarantine measures for people coming back from countries with likely lower levels of risk. What is the economic and social health risks going forward?
As I say, lots more to it now than the simple stay at home method of months ago - we have to live with this for some time.
That said, it's clearly still a big deal or we wouldn't be in such chao
www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/deaths-covid-19
The president offered his idea for a cure in the White House briefing room Thursday after a presentation that mentioned disinfectants can kill the novel coronavirus on surfaces and in the air.
Quoted in the Washington Post
“I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute,” Trump said during Thursday’s coronavirus press briefing. “And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets inside the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”
The question, which Trump offered unprompted, immediately spurred doctors, lawmakers and the makers of Lysol to respond with incredulity and warnings against injecting or otherwise ingesting disinfectants, which are highly toxic.
The quarantine worked when the hospitals were full. Since then we have been social distancing with empty hospitals. As a result there is no chance for herd immunity before winter now. And now virus is circulating again where I live and what progress can we say has been made?? No vaccine. No option for a full lock down again.
Re. the US, my suspicion is that the high death toll is related to high obesity levels more than any actions that were taken or not taken..
Basically, we are not gonna contain this thing -not without another full lockdown. So until we have a vaccine I’m beginning to think we just ask the extra vulnerable to be extra careful and carry on living
They do admit more people have flu and pneumonia on their death certificate then Covid over that period but due to flu’s reduced mortality level vs Covid (when taken in insulation to pneumonia) they say Covid would still have resulted in more deaths - I wonder if this will change as the realistic Covid mortality level drops? (E.g. As we better understand just how many people have had it and recovered as it’s likely orders of magnitude more then the people that have been tested as confirmed cases)
It does state that double the amount of people did die from flu and pneumonia in that period vs Covid - 284 v 141 - probably unfair to lump them together I agree and my mistake for not mentioning pneumonia but still a muddy subject with the ability to interpret data to suit your chosen ‘story’ as the Sun did - no surprise there.
- Covid is more contagious than the influenza.
- Covid is "suspiciously" more deadly than the influenza. Covid doesn't kill otherwise healthy people, but it has been proven to reduce the average life expectancy of the people who died with it by an average of just 3 weeks. Those that died from it were, by and large, already in the advanced stages of their various (and often multiple) illnesses, and would likely have died in a relatively short period after their actual death had they not contracted Covid. Just look at how the number of those who died from other causes have dropped in the last 6 months; Covid simply killed them before their bad hearts, or terminal illnesses etc. got there first.
- There are *potentially* real and significant long term complications for many people who don't die from it and we are still learning about what those are. Unfortunately we don't have a crystal ball to see what the long-term effects are on the small minority of people who experience severe symptoms, but again healthy people (the vast majority of cases) can expect have mild to moderate symptoms, and to recover fully. We'll simply have to wait and see what the actual long-term effects are, because speculating now will only lead to more fear and confusion.
- That there is an unprecedented worldwide effort taking place to come up with vaccines, antivirals and other treatment strategies. We've been trying for decades to develop a vaccine for the common cold, without success. Those trials have also led to several deaths among test subjects. The Chief Medical Officers in several western countries have indicated that any Covid vaccination may have to follow the same protocol as the seasonal flu vaccine, and that people will require annual top-ups. But, no flu vaccine that was distributed in the last 5 years has been more than 50% effective, and several times it's effectiveness has been below 30%. Quite simply, it's an expensive shot in the dark, for minimal benefit, and one we're not actually improving at providing over time.
There are also significant alarms sounding over the suspension of long-term effect studies of these vaccines. That's not a good idea. If you don't understand why, then I suggest you educate yourself on the Thalidomide scandal. And if still think something like that couldn't possibly happen in this day and age, then read up on the Boeing 737 Max.
- We should be doing all we can in the meanwhile to mitigate the spread of the disease to keep ourselves and those around us safe and that we already know what we need to do in order to accomplish that.
This is the only sensible approach. No expectation of wearing a mask to protect others, no government interference to "strongly encourage" individuals to get the vaccine by denying them access to social services (or their basic human rights) just individuals choosing the right approach for them based on sound medical advice, not scaremongering.
@justanotherusername: There's every reason to believe that Covid simply accelerated the deaths in a lot of people that would otherwise have died of heart attacks, cancer, flu, pneumonia or any other illness in the same period.
Will we have another round or multiple rounds of lockdowns? Maybe. I say likely. But it's just as likely that those will be shorter because people are more used to the current state and the lockdowns would have a greater effect much quicker.
Will the world be back to normal next year? Unlikely. But boy do I hope it will be, I want to do some bike trips!
And I don't want to argue about how this is for the "flu" and shouldn't be adhered to. It's for a simliar respiratory pandemic.
Lockdowns, even short ones are still an affront to liberty and a suppression of basic human rights. They should be the last resort, not the first option tabled. Covid isn't even bad enough to warrant such blatant techno-tarianism- it's mortality rates are way below those of actual pandemics like the Spanish Flu.
We could return to 'normal' tomorrow if people were just willing to stand up for it;Those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
i.imgur.com/sfvTQhn.png
Granted, Slovenia has a population of ~2 mio, Sweden has a population of ~10 mio. So let's take a cool, round factor of 5 and call it a day. The Slovenian absolute daily new cases peak was, drumroll, 60. At a time where Sweden's cases only started getting off in a serious manner. Even at a time when Sweden's cases apparently dropped off a cliff (I can't find any info if some measures or differences in case handling were taken or if this is 'natural - the latter seems unlikely given the cliff), in july and august, at a time where we can talk about a second wave in Slovenia with much reduced measures (the lockdown is more or less off), we are still talking about a difference with a factor of 10, which means Sweden has ~double the per capita daily case amount to Slovenia.
Granted, the lockdown in Slovenia was a complete shitshow regarding comments from people due to draconian measures (we were to work from home, if possible, schools and kindergartens were closed down and for a time only movement inside the county of residence was allowed, unless needed otherwise). But it does seem like it did something. And we were told to be careful and not engage in sports to not strain the healthcare system, because not only taking care of injured people took away the healthcare workers that could be needed to fight the epidemic, taking care of injured people is harder when there's the threat of a virus hanging in the air.
Case in point? I had an operation 6 weeks ago today for a smashed cheekbone. Before the operation, being examined by the doctors, they said 'the operation will happen in a few hours, when we get back your test results, if they are negative. Well, if they're positive, we're all going home anyway'. And I'm talking about 2 doctors and a nurse in the exam room at the least.
As for 'we knew this then', we didn't. We still know diddly squat about the virus. Erring on the cautionary side is the only logical and sensible thing when it comes to something you don't know about. There's someone in this thread saying he had mild symptoms, but months after he can barely ride because of the after-effects. Was he one of the groups vulnerable to the virus that should be protected?
a) The people can be trusted to take care of themselves once properly informed.
b) The lockdowns were largely ineffective at preventing deaths; We gave so much for so little in return.
The initial hit of the virus was always going to be bad; It spread rapidly, put huge strain on services that struggled in the face of so many critical cases and it a great many people died before their time. But again, those people were already seriously ill for the most part. And deaths have dropped substantially since that first wave because those most at risk are locked down with the rest of us. But only those that are most at risk need to be safeguarded; The rest of us can get on with normal life.
It's way past time to open up and get the world moving again.
A better marker for success would be comparing their deaths per population to their neighbors because ultimately that has less variables in measurement. In which case Sweden has done quite poorly. They share a lot culturally, where and how people live and so on with Norway and Finland, all very compliant to government overall. They have way more deaths 576 per million compared to Finlands 60 and Norway's 49. Around 1/3 of Swedes self isolated despite no order from gov, imagine if they had told people to stay home, I bet their death rate would be more similar to Finland and Norway.
My point isn't that these countries fared well, it's that despite not implementing lockdowns they're far from the worst, when we're all being told how necessary the lockdowns are. To make that case countries without lockdown should really have death rates head and shoulders above all the countries that put them in place. Maybe, then an honest debate about lockdowns could happen.
USA , Brazil , and Mexico have the worst Covid deaths and all have been condemned for there lack of lockdown whereas New Zealand who acted quick and strict have come out of this ( atm ) with good numbers !
Act quick and strict will save life’s and your economy long term will be better off !
Sweden has almost twice the population of Finland and Norway (52nd and 45th in terms of testing). Sweden has tested 10.83% of the population, Finland- 11.11%, Norway 12.64%. Maybe their stats are as disingenuous as you claim Swedens are?
Sweden standas apart from the other scandanavian countries though- it has a much higher population, a land bridge with mainland Europe and a significant nigrant population. Comparing neighbours isn't a smart move. Finland's only other neighbour is Russia- how's that going to work in your favour?
Now, that's not to say that fear from the virus won't hinder the consumer driven economy but to bring up long term I think is incorrect as we really don't know where the chips will fall.
The UK ‘locked down’ however and we, managed 45k deaths and the worst economic outcome in Europe....
So, aside from it being too late, which is very likely possible, do you not think that our high death stats have something more to do with complete failure to protect care homes and vulnerable people in hospitals? (Germany did, look at their numbers) How do you explain lockdown easing, case load increasing but deaths continuing to decrease regardless?
The point you're trying to make is not supported by the claims in your comment, as Slovenia is FAR more densely populated (as opposed to what you said) and has an older population than Sweden, judging by the share of 65+ year olds (as opposed to what you said). The percentage of people living in Ljubljana was also wrong as was the claim that a lot of people in Slovenia live in only one city. Kinda like in Sweden.
The kicker? Slovenia is more densely populated, has older population and has a higher percentage of people living in one city. All these facts are condusive to higher infection rates. Yet they are much lower than they are in Sweden. See the point? See how a lockdown helped?
If you're trying to make a point there are countries worse than Sweden that had a lockdown, support it with numbers.
I don’t know , it just seems EVERYTHING this gov does turn to sh*t , and I don’t believe a word that comes out of they’re mouths !
@commental1: please don’t I was trying to forget we have that to deal with too.... ah well.
Slovenia has 2 cities with ~100K citizens or more (including Maribor because it's close) so 19% of the population live in large towns/ cities- Sweden has 11 (including Jönköping Norrköping, with ~97K each), for a total of 35% of the population.
We don't have to go down this rabbit hole- my point is very simple (and with good reason, as we've just demonstrated); You can't make direct comparisons between countries. If you're going to make comparisons you need to do it with their individual stats and those *of the rest of the world* and have educated discussions about the relative differences in their various populations distributions, customs etc.
My case is not that countries that didn't lock down fared better than all the countries that did, only that they didn't fare the worst of them, which raises the question of whether the lockdowns were really justified.
@ptrcarson: I just noticed the (unfortunate) typo in my reply to you. It was entirely unintended- I was responding on my phone and I missed it.
Plus, the 100k limit, why not put the limit at 1 million? That way neither of the countries has a large city. Or if I take the largest 10 (not even 11!) cities in Slovenia, it covers the same 35 % as in Sweden.
We don't have to go down the rabbit hole, agreed, we only need to look at the facts as they are and not make arbitrary comparisons of countries vs. cities just to try to make simple points fit a certain mindset, regardless if they are right or wrong.
And like I said, "If you're trying to make a point there are countries worse than Sweden that had a lockdown, support it with numbers.". I never said why are you saying Sweden fared the best of them all. Just show a country that had a lockdown when it mattered that fared or fares worse than Sweden. You're trying to wiggle out that you never said non-lockdown countries fared better than lockdown countries. I'm just asking you to show an example of how non-lockdown countries didn't fare horribly bad. Which is a much simpler thing to do and should be easy given the point you're trying to make.
I made the point that one municipality in Sweden contains roughly the same number of people as 75% of all of Slovenia to highlight why we can't go making the kinds of conclusions you seem hell bent on inferring from what I'm saying.
The facts as they are:
Sweden is 9th among the countries with the highest deaths per million inhabitants, 7th if you exclude San Marino and Andorra because their tiny population skew the results. The Netherlands is 19th. My point is that to justify lockdowns these countries should top of the list by a massive margin before lockdowns were ever even considered. I'm not comparing them with other individual countries, I'm looking at how the virus has affect all the other countries, and wondering why lockdowns were necessary.
I'm trying to explain to you why the lockdowns were a bad solution using the rankings. I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything If anything, it's you that's being disingenuous. Direct quote copied from my previous post: "Lockdowns were far from the logical thing to do, and the countries that didn't implement them have fared better than many countries that did". *Many countries*
My take on this has always been that the lockdowns were only effective because those that needed safeguarding were locked down like everyone else. But a more pragmatic, sensible and ultimately better approach for everyone would have been to isolate those most likely to have serious symptoms, and allow the rest of us to get on with life.
Lockdowns work to stop outbreaks... in the same way that dynamite works for fishing. There are better tools for the job, that don't have so many dire and uncontrollable consequences.
Doctors routinely have to decide who gets treated, and those that are unlikely to recover. When the decision is made to move from treatment to palliative care we call it mercy, on a battlefield it's triage. The initial hit of the virus was such that tough choices had to be made. And when you consider that those that died with Covid were already very close to the end of their lives it makes sense to redirect resources from them to those with greater chances of recovering.
"Those that did so slowed the outbreak to manageable levels." Only because those that are most at risk are locked down with us. Covid was like a flash fire in that it did the greatest amount of damage up-front. Even as cases rise he number of new deaths remain low- because anyone at risk with a bit of sense is ensuring they don't catch it. And that's the way to should be Once there were sufficient controls and processes in place to protect those that are at most risk, there was absolutely *zero* reason to quarantine healthy individuals.
I don't get why you think there was value in people dying of this unnecessarily. Yes there was an economic impact but seems to me like recovery is well underway here and we now have a better understanding of the virus that we did 6 months ago so that w don't have to go back to as draconian measures to keep the population safe. I'm sure glad we did what we did.
Those that died of Covid overwhelmingly died slightly prematurely, not unnecessarily. They were far from healthy individuals by-and-large. They were already very ill, and often terminally so. Where is the value in ensuring their lives were extended at all costs, during a crisis, alone and afraid and gasping for air. I'm sure many would have given up their remaining time to be allowed to see their family and friends one last time.
"I'm sure glad we did what we did." For now. But the piper has yet to be paid for all the furloughed staff, government handouts and business incentives that kept the world running for the last few months. It's nonsensical to me that those we tried in vain to save were never going to live long enough to see what he world would become. To me, it seems like the misery ahead of us, that was entirely preventable if we'd just followed common sense, is far worse than anything we've experienced due to Covid.
We will see, I hope everyone gets out of this as well as possible. I just would rather hedge my bets on caution and deliberate action than the other option.
Other people, those that don't live in "wonderful, perfect" BC have endured far harsher lockdowns and sacrificed so much for questionable benefit to them, those they love, and their society at large. I might be callous in terms of the language and basis of my criticism of the lockdowns, but your indifference to the suffering of so many is so entitled it's galling. I'd genuinely be ashamed to be so uncaring.
@commental: of course culture has a huge impact. But you can't change the culture over night. You can impose 'draconian' measures which is the next best thing when you're trying to stop an outbreak though. Therefore lockdowns, work from home, mandatory masks, etc.
BTW, South Korea also fared reasonably well and besides masks they also quickly deployed a contact tracing app (with a much more privacy worrisome method of functioning than what we have now from Google and Apple), so there are of course alternatives to lockdowns.
And, when you're mentioning tough choices, how, at the time, a stop, drop and roll approach to quenching the fire with a lockdown wasn't the least tough option? Regarding the financial effects of the lockdowns and everything, I'll leave this here. www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
Though I am very sure it won't change a thing as @ptrcarson pretty much said everyhting:
In terms of deaths per million inhabitants, the following countries are between Sweden at 9th, and the Netherlands at 19th:
*P denotes Partial lockdown, L denotes a full lockdown.
Brazil(P), USA(P), Mexico(L), France(L), Panama(L), Bolivia(L), Colombia(L), Equador(L)
I'll include Ireland(L) in that list too because their deaths numbers are very similar to The Netherlands.
Countries that fared worse than both Sweden and The Netherlands:
Italy(L), Spain (L), UK(P), Chile(L), Belgium(L), Peru(L).
I don't see why you refuse to accept a simple premise: Despite not locking down, Sweden and The Netherlands have not fared worse than many other nations that did. So again, the virus is not overwhelming Sweden or The Netherlands significantly more than countries that did, so were the lockdowns justified? It seems Canada didn't really implement one if 50 people can gather, while in Australia people are being dragged from their cars and placed in detention centers if they test positive for the virus, so @ptrcarson exists is a warm, fuzzy bubble as far as lockdowns go.
Regarding dollar amounts etc. You do realize that social services require tax collections for funding, right? Hospitals, welfare, pensions; Things the most vulnerable in society depend on. And if they're under funded (which they always do in a massive global recession) then those individuals suffer disproportionately.
@ptrcarson and you both suffer from the same deluded ideal, and that is that today's problems should be tackled with no consideration given to the situation tomorrow, or in 6 months. By saving a million people (maybe) from a slightly untimely grave now, we may be condemning tens, if not hundreds of millions to suffer more than they would have otherwise, and a significant portion of them will die as a direct result.
I'm tired of trying to discuss this with someone who has absolutely no idea of how to form an argument, or what makes a good argument, and has to be dragged along the logical steps required to achieve an understanding of the most basic concepts that are being outlined to them, so this will be the last time I will reply to you.
www.bbc.com/news/health-53951764
Left-leaning BBC promotes Swedish-style lockdown (I.e. No lockdown for healthy individuals, just clear guidance and advice) while protecting those most at risk, admits 2nd wave is driven by cases, not deaths and describes how a significant portion of the population have an innate immunity to Covid. This no doubt will be used to attack Boris and the Tories all over again (after soft, screeching lefties demanded a lockdown in the first place) but that's to be expected, because if it wasn't for double-standards the illiberal left would have none at all...
I'm so glad the rest of the world has finally begun to catch up, it was getting lonely out here in the land of common sense.
Hat tip to the anonymous PBer for sending this on too (you know who you are).
I was at my buddies birthday party asking people to bet me that these draconian lockdowns would be viewed as bad if not worse in the future than the Iraq War. Of course I got shit on. But here we are, I didn't think it would be this soon.
I'll also say that people are actually waking up to the mental health crisis this bs has caused too. It's been very bad, at least here in America.
I know where you're coming from. I'm not sure we've faced anything on this scale since the Cold War. And look what that did to those who lived through it.
Fear does strange and horrible things to people. Certainly the new McCarthyism seems be directed at anti-lockdown-types, anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers.
I hope you stay safe.
I don't think you and me really are that far off of what we think is appropriate. Many here in BC point to Sweden as an excuse to do nothing rather than the minimal change that our gov asked us to do. They are incorrect in what it is that was done in Sweden. After spending the time reading deeper into the policy that Sweden used it really was not that different than we had here. They didn't close business as much as we did but their proximity to central Europe likely had more to do with their significant issues than their policy. I would say that in the future I hope we here do similar to what we did before when the virus surges. I do think a little more restriction than Sweden, like more rules on how business stays open in ways that are safe would have been better for them but certainly not a full lock down unless we are in a full hospital overflowing death spiral. As with lockdowns we have more information now and should adapt to allow the most free movement possible while limiting people interactions to keep contact tracing viable.
I think many people coming from many different contexts spend a lot of time talking past each other on this one, myself included. Some people here say our "lockdowns" were wrong and we should be like Sweden and do nothing. Their characterization of our restrictions as a lockdown is incorrect and their characterization of Sweden as doing nothing is also incorrect.
I do think you are a little cavalier when talking about who is dyeing. It is not only the nearly dead, there are others who have have a fair bill of health who have passed away too early. They do not need to have a health issue that you can blame on them to be at risk. Families have lost loved one prematurely and that cannot be downplayed. When I read that I feel great pain for those who have lost people too young, if we were unlucky that could have been my family, my sister is 33. I think you should take your own words into consideration, "your indifference to the suffering of so many is so entitled it's galling. I'd genuinely be ashamed to be so uncaring". There are many with grief that should not be belittled, that is what really bothers me about those minimizing the impact of the virus.
Regarding the Swedish policy- I don't believe it was an indifferent 'do nothing' approach, so I'm not one of those people. The Swedish government chose not to interfere unduly in their countries affairs and instead they allowed businesses to stay open and they treated people as responsible, rational individuals by educating them about the risks of Covid and ways to reduce them. And in return they were rewarded (as a population, not just a government) with high compliance and less severe economic fallout. I don't know how well the hospitals fared, but their economy has reportedly weathered the storm better than most (I'd better be careful with that term), giving them a larger reserve with which up to tackle any unforeseeable future events.
Again, the virus doesn't kill healthy individuals. Just because someone doesn't yet have a diagnosis, doesn't mean they were healthy. The only case of I know of where someone who was "healthy" that died of the virus was 5'3" and must have weighed 250lbs. I take your point about being cavalier when talking about the deaths though, I could have been more delicate, but I'm not minimizing the impact of the virus, I'm stating it for what it is so people such as yourself can understand the consequences of the decisions we made now on society in the near future. You may not agree, or like the facts as I have presented them, which is your choice. But when the bill comes due for all those furloughed workers, the business grants coupled with the enormous drop in tax receipts from the reduced workforce and businesses that can only serve 40-50% of the capacity they previously could, then the real nightmare will begin. Do you think Apple, Google, Amazon etc. are suddenly going to start paying their fair share? I have a better chance of winning a DH World Cup.
I'd like you to consider what it's going to feel like when the world is plunged again into massive recession, tens of millions of people are unable to afford the most basic items they need to survive and there's no amount of tax you can pay to help them all (or even any of them, realistically). You probably won't even notice their suffering you'll be working so hard to stay afloat. And worst of all, it didn't have to be like that if rationality had prevailed; 1 million unfortunate but unavoidable marginally-early deaths now (whether we locked down or not) or 10 million indiscriminate deaths a year from now, 50 million unemployed, mass evictions. 1 million deaths is only the tip of this iceberg- the real disaster, what lurks beneath is still waiting to rear it's ugly, destructive head and there won't be any options like we had when this began. That's where sentimentality gets you.
They both returned immediately to work, both of their employers knew where they had been. They said how many on their plane hadn’t pre filled the required info sheet and some didn’t even know they had to.
Nobody checked forms to ensure correct details, people have not been contacted and checked to see if isolating, it’s a total farce.
Besides, one of them went to the canaries, they have barely had a case there let alone a death, yet I could spend a who week eating out and drinking in a city in the UK with a massively higher case load and nobody would bat an eyelid....
I think we have all decided that non-masking wearing non-quarantiners are the socially unacceptable Covid equivalents of drink drivers.
If the test, trace and quarantine rules are implemented and any infection spread therefore limited to the event Itself the risk to competitors and staff (who should know the obvious risks ) is almost non existent.
If they are not doing it, I guess those that I know that got visited just made it up?
Idiot.
So, either your are lying, your friends lying, or your friends have broken quarantine warranting a police visit, so like I say, many are not adhering to it... pick one?
So yeah, lockdowns don't work at all. Freedom and corona for everybody!!!
www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
Plenty of cases were people take months to recover, also many cases were people have permanent lungs damage afterwards.
Then again you would know this if you were reading news and not so focused swallowing everything that comes from that one ridiculously stupid twitter account
Yeah - no probs. I was fine for about a week but every time I exercised I'd get severe chest pains, racing heart rate and mucus build up in my respiratory tract.
It looks like it's given me a rubbish version of acid reflux...on meds now which are helping but can't do much in the way of exercise. Waiting to see a consultant to check out the heart issue. Seems lots of people are getting different post viral symptoms...ranging from none....to much worse than mine. I've no doubt I'll be back up to riding properly again at some point... Got a new bike to ride after all.
Stay safe all. ????????❤️
Horseshit. You need 70-90% of the population to be immune to achieve this. Doing so without a vaccine is essentially a death penalty in the case of covid 19. You've clearly researched f*ck all and are seeking to reverse engineer your fantasy fears so that they are grounded in some kind of logic (as explained in Conspiracy Theorising for Dummies), which would ultimately lead to the conclusion that big pharma caused everything from HIV to cancer to diabetes (which are caused by having sex with simians (in the first instance and possibly BS), genetic predisposition/environmental factors, and the western diet, respectively), not some claw-handed boogie man in a dimly-lit lab. The pharma industry has been involved in some dodgy shit, but only where the market has allowed it, not least in the US where you are told how free you are every day, just keep popping the Xanax and prescription heroin and do anything to keep the job that pays for the medical bills that inevitably stem from that beautiful American freedom (to get fat and shoot random people) uncle Donnie keeps telling you about while gradually destroying the whole concept of truth and honesty, giving every crack pot a licence to make the shit up that you read on the internet.
If you ever find yourself wondering which fears are legit and which have been carefully implanted in your head, count how many people in the US have been killed by, say, muslim immigrants in the last year and how many by the abject incompetence, corruption and venality of its govt.
The reliability of the antibody tests as an indicator of who's had it isn't great either.
Too many unknowns, none of which are reassuring.
I believe we are going to have to get used to living with this thing (as long as there is capacity in the hospitals) until there is a vaccine.
Is anyone paying a single bit of attention to travel quarantine in the UK, two people I know didn’t, they filled out a quick form, weren’t contacted at any point and were back to work the day after landing.
ideally they'd return from holiday and have a police tag round their ankle for 2 weeks while they stay at home, and somehow their shopping is delivered etc.
there'd be outrage at the government for deprivation of liberty, but i'd argue that its a risk you're willing to take by going on holiday.. and its only 2 weeks isolation after all (if you're unfortunate enough to catch it).
enforcement like this would make people think twice about going on holiday right now.. and would make them more cautious while they're out there
As they are only doing this following a report that people are not isolating from tracers or a report from someone else in the public it appears even the people he believes are living to the letter of the guidance are actually doing the exact opposite, like you say, ah sod it....
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53937997
www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/7204384/coronavirus-glory-holes-sex/amp
This statement says two things:
#1 PB staff are experts in immunology and virology.
#2 PB staff believe that PB readers are too stupid to decide for themselves what is true and what is not.
Censorship of free speech is egregious and highly immoral.