12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,901
As many of you know by now, I am very skeptical of the extreme measures that government's around the world has taken and my believe is that the economic aftermath is going to kill more people than the virus, especially in the third world.

Here is a list of 12 experts in the field that are asking similar questions that many of us have done. Is it really necessary to have a lock down, do we need the army on the streets? What about the bill of rights and will we be getting the freedoms back that we have now given it to governments around the world?

History tells us that pandemics can be dangerous to society and often lead to dictatorships and revolutions.

So I am no Nostradamus, but I am worried about the people that have lost their livelihoods already or the enormous power that the ANC has been given under the disasters management act.


The most notable expert here Dr Sucharit Bhakdi that recently wrote an open letter to Angela Markel and asked for the lockdown to be pulled down.

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.
Other critics have come from around the World.

Andrew Marther, a retired statistician, critiques the imperial college numbers based on WHO data.
It would appear that the UK went into lock-down exactly when it reached its inflection point.

 
Last edited:

chrisc

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
8,294
These opinions are all well and good, but governments cannot chop and change. This will be seen as weakness.
The peak in Europe will occur around Easter Sunday
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
22,294
Many appear to be from countries with better health care than that of Italy. From point of view of countries least affected, the panic is unwarranted but those in the frontlines of the battle know full well what would've happened had governments not imposed lockdowns.

Granted, they're medical experts with years of research and experience in their fields but what is their collective experience with pandemics like this?
 

Napalm

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
2,616
People must stay indoors, go out as little as possible. If they do need to go out (buy food , goto pharmacy or doctor..) then they must wash hands often and sanitize. Wear masks if they have. Stay away from groups of people and safe distances of 1.5 to 2meters.

Stressfull times we live in, but how many of you can afford to get infected. Bringing the sickness home to your wife/kids/parents. I know some people go on 5% and 10% chance of dying but that doesn't take into account if you have underlying conditions.

There's so many people in SA have Asthma and TB or high blood pressure or kidney problems or Diabetes. Some people even have 2 or 3 of those i mentioned. Their chances if they got it.. would not be 5% or 10%. Just my opinion.. not a fact but my guess would be their chance would be likely 70-80% of not making it, due to the severity of this virus and what it does.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,901
Many appear to be from countries with better health care than that of Italy. From point of view of countries least affected, the panic is unwarranted but those in the frontlines of the battle know fully well what would've happened had governments not imposed lockdowns.

Granted, they're medical experts with years of research and experience in their fields but what is their collective experience with pandemics like this?

So I am challenging the fact that the confinement actually works or that it isn't a lie.

This is from Andrew Marther who used the WHO's own data to show that the UK went into lockdown exactly when the country was at its inflection point.



So I am really beginning to ask if this isn't blown over and the modern case of WMDs.

I don't recall any serious debate before we all decided to go into confinement and I believe that was a big mistake.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,901
People must stay indoors, go out as little as possible. If they do need to go out (buy food , goto pharmacy or doctor..) then they must wash hands often and sanitize. Wear masks if they have. Stay away from groups of people and safe distances of 1.5 to 2meters.

Stressfull times we live in, but how many of you can afford to get infected. Bringing the sickness home to your wife/kids/parents. I know some people go on 5% and 10% chance of dying but that doesn't take into account if you have underlying conditions.

There's so many people in SA have Asthma and TB or high blood pressure or kidney problems or Diabetes. Some people even have 2 or 3 of those i mentioned. Their chances if they got it.. would not be 5% or 10%. Just my opinion.. not a fact but my guess would be their chance would be likely 70-80% of not making it, due to the severity of this virus and what it does.
So most old people have the same change of dying at old age despite having the virus. Real life has a high risk of dying.

This is from Andrew Mather again, the statistician from Pearless Reads.
1585944327447.png

Normal life in China I believe it was, is more dangerous than dying from the Coronavirus.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,901
These opinions are all well and good, but governments cannot chop and change. This will be seen as weakness.
The peak in Europe will occur around Easter Sunday
Aren't we doing more harm than good?
 

Napalm

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
2,616
So most old people have the same change of dying at old age despite having the virus. Real life has a high risk of dying.

This is from Andrew Mather again, the statistician from Pearless Reads.
View attachment 812039

Normal life in China I believe it was, is more dangerous than dying from the Coronavirus.
I see the numbers, but the fact is. In normal circumstances, when there was no CoronaVirus around. You could goto the shops or the mall or do your normal business without getting the corona virus and live normal.

Where'as now. The more people that have it. The bigger the chance of getting it. and once you get it. Within 2 weeks or 3. It's going to be a flip of a coin, depending if you have underlying conditions.

Normally, you might get the cold. Goto the doctor. Get some nebulizing fluids and steroid for the lungs or anti-biotic. Maybe some spray for the sniffels. Then 3-4 days and your back to normal.

That is not the case with Corona. Unless you have no other sicknesses or issues you might not know of.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,901
I see the numbers, but the fact is. In normal circumstances, when there was no CoronaVirus around. You could goto the shops or the mall or do your normal business without getting the corona virus and live normal.

Where'as now. The more people that have it. The bigger the chance of getting it. and once you get it. Within 2 weeks or 3. It's going to be a flip of a coin, depending if you have underlying conditions.

Normally, you might get the cold. Goto the doctor. Get some nebulizing fluids and steroid for the lungs or anti-biotic. Maybe some spray for the sniffels. Then 3-4 days and your back to normal.

That is not the case with Corona. Unless you have no other sicknesses or issues you might not know of.
The issue is that the risks from the Coronavirus is highly overstated, even for old people and those with underlying conditions. Now I get that if I had those conditions then I wouldn't want to be an experiment to test a risk management model, but why shouldn't those that are abled bodies be able to work?

We have to weigh all of this against the economy at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:

Napalm

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
2,616
The issue is that the risks from the Coronavirus is highly overstates even for old people and those with underlying conditions. Now I get that if I had those conditions then I wouldn't want to be an experiment to test a risk management model, but why shouldn't those that are abled bodies be able to work?

We have to weigh all of this against the economy at the end of the day.
True. we don't want the whole economy to be in shambles. Killing all small businesses, specially if they not part of essential services.

People that work and live hand to mouth with either daily salary or get paid weekly. They getting hit hard right now. They simply can't stay indoors as there's no food.. or better yet, they might end up without a place to stay.

Many folks as it was, might have been scraping by with a few rands to spare each month or paying off a car or a loan they made for their study's. Now this thing stops everyone in their tracks.

Life is hard out there.
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
23,479
I see the numbers, but the fact is. In normal circumstances, when there was no CoronaVirus around. You could goto the shops or the mall or do your normal business without getting the corona virus and live normal.

Where'as now. The more people that have it. The bigger the chance of getting it. and once you get it. Within 2 weeks or 3. It's going to be a flip of a coin, depending if you have underlying conditions.

Normally, you might get the cold. Goto the doctor. Get some nebulizing fluids and steroid for the lungs or anti-biotic. Maybe some spray for the sniffels. Then 3-4 days and your back to normal.

That is not the case with Corona. Unless you have no other sicknesses or issues you might not know of.
Actually you could still get a Coronavirus and if you were healthy either have no symptoms or a mild to bad flu like experience.
Coronaviruses are 15% of all common viruses floating around, this one was just a novel one as we've not seen this one before. In 95% of the cases it's mild and that's the cases we know about.
 

CataclysmZA

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,626
As many of you know by now, I am very skeptical of the extreme measures that government's around the world has taken and my believe is that the economic aftermath is going to kill more people than the virus, especially in the third world.

Here is a list of 12 experts in the field that are asking similar questions that many of us have done. Is it really necessary to have a lock down, do we need the army on the streets? What about the bill of rights and will we be getting the freedoms back that we have now given it to governments around the world?
Just noting here that this has all happened before. We've had four major flu pandemics in the last century: Spanish Flu, Asian Flu, Hong Kong Flu, and the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak. Swine flu was an H1N1 flu, similar to Spanish Flu with about the same infectivity. We've also had pandemics of other viruses like smallpox and measles, and Africa has decades of experience managing Ebola outbreaks.

In each one the same questions were asked by pundits who were critical of the government's decisions after following the recommendations of doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists. Every time, it's been demonstrated that containment measures such as social distancing, self-isolation, quarantine, and even full lockdown modes have been the most effective in stopping a pandemic. This has been the measure shown to have the most effect. Historical records show that even in biblical times there were mass shutdowns of government and countries in an effort to contain a pandemic, even though epidemiologists weren't a thing back then.

It's not an extreme measure in the face of the facts: pandemics can be stopped if the people are stopped. The choice is up to governments as to how many lives they want to lose to it. The outbreak will eventually stop because enough people are dying that it naturally causes everyone to stay at home.

History tells us that pandemics can be dangerous to society and often lead to dictatorships and revolutions.

So I am no Nostradamus, but I am worried about the people that have lost their livelihoods already or the enormous power that the ANC has been given under the disasters management act.
It's not strictly the pandemic that led to those situations. Spanish Flu left everyone reeling and for a decade economic growth across the world was stunted. If there's ever a revolution or a dictatorship installed, it's only because of a power vacuum left by a lacking leadership. That can happen even without a novel coronavirus streaking across the nation and overwhelming hospitals.

So I am challenging the fact that the confinement actually works or that it isn't a lie.

This is from Andrew Marther who used the WHO's own data to show that the UK went into lockdown exactly when the country was at its inflection point.
It's a generally well-established fact that a lot of countries aren't doing enough tests to get accurate enough data about the pandemic. Even our numbers are subject to this, even though the trend matches other countries. Still, the evidence from previous pandemics shows that the inflection point is the briefest of windows during which you can implement measures that will be effective to halt the spread of the disease. Data from the Spanish Flu pandemic shows this clearly:

spanish flu US cities.png

The graphs are small, but you can still see inflection points, and some cities across the US chose that moment to put measures in place, some did not. Some put measures in much earlier. The prominent example here is Pittsburgh. With a large population, they implemented measures right at the inflection points, and managed a much lower peak despite having more dead than Philadelphia.

So I am really beginning to ask if this isn't blown over and the modern case of WMDs.

I don't recall any serious debate before we all decided to go into confinement and I believe that was a big mistake.
The measures taken by countries globally are extreme, but we have much larger populations than we did back in 1917. We have rapid modes of transport, air travel, and all sorts of comorbidities in addition to issues like air pollution and lacking diets. Social distancing measures mean jack **** when the virus has the ability to cross the Atlantic in less than 12 hours.

Even the prophet Muhammed in the Quran wrote that during times of plague people should stay inside the borders of the country suffering the plague and not leave it for fear of spreading it to another country.

The issue is that the risks from the Coronavirus is highly overstated, even for old people and those with underlying conditions. Now I get that if I had those conditions then I wouldn't want to be an experiment to test a risk management model, but why shouldn't those that are abled bodies be able to work?
Think about what you're saying here. You're arguing that these measures might be overbearing and unconstitutional, violating your human rights, but you also wouldn't want to be the one to test whether the risk of contracting the virus is low enough that people should continue working. Even if the chance of dying is low if you're young, there's a lot of evidence that you can be healthy and still be hospitalised with serious symptoms, or die, thanks to a high initial viral delivery from coming into contact with each other.

Even if you're given the option, the able bodied and healthy have to make the Death Star decision. If you're desperate enough for work, you'll sign up to work on the second Death Star. If you're skittish enough that you'd prefer staying out of the line of fire of the war, you go find something else that's safer to fo.

Would you be OK with managing a country and telling everyone that it's alright to continue as normal during a pandemic? Would you be accepting of the consequences that doing so would enable the virus to spread faster, infect more people, and overwhelm your hospitals? Kill off major portions of your population? You would have people dying in the street.
 
Last edited:

saor

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
22,783
I don't recall any serious debate before we all decided to go into confinement and I believe that was a big mistake.
And if it turned out confinement did work you'd be singing a different tune now. The point is there's not always the luxury of time - sometimes you make the (wrong?) decision in the moment because the risk of not taking it seems worse.

I think you'll get a far more fruitful discussion if you frame this in the context of how best to approach a situation like this in the future rather than crying over spilt milk and pointing fingers for things already done.
 

Nicodeamus

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,901
And if it turned out confinement did work you'd be singing a different tune now. The point is there's not always the luxury of time - sometimes you make the (wrong?) decision in the moment because the risk of not taking it seems worse.

I think you'll get a far more fruitful discussion if you frame this in the context of how best to approach a situation like this in the future rather than crying over spilt milk and pointing fingers for things already done.
In January when we all thought that 3.5% of the people might die of the virus then yes it sounded sensible. Now with more evidence we know that this virus isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was going to be.

What also came out to be was that the 3.5% was pure speculation from Niel Ferguson's Imperial College document. There was no data to back it up.

This is a curve again from Pearless reeds, based on WHO data.

1585986817590.png

As you can see the UK went into lockdown exactly when there was curlover.

And if you took extrapolated from the amount of people that died in Hubei, Sweden etc you would get to 5700 people dying in the UK (ironically the revised number from Niel Ferguson's calculation).

so, I believe that our governments are lying to us.

South Africa's population is about the same as Hubei's, meaning we will have around 3500 people dying. Thats about 3 days of average deaths.
 
Top