Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

I mentioned that. he said we didn't get it wrong but he also said we "painted ourselves into a corner". We have reduced the number of cases but we also destroyed the economy more than we had to because in his expert opinion, he only believes we have managed to delay the onset of Chy-na Virus cases.

When your first posted the actual interview you did concede he explicitly says 'countries that lock down did NOT get it wrong'. The next time you refer to the video you claim 'he believes that lock downs like the ones in Cyprus are a waste of time'.

In other words, he doesn't believe Chy-na Virus is going away and Australia will need to close its borders indefinitely to keep those wonderful statistics which obviously isn't feasible. he said that all countries that have locked down have painted themselves in a corner which is difficult to get out of. He also mentioned school closures pointing out that it will now be difficult to reopen schools for a very long time.

What position would you rather Australia was in today, right now. Being in a position where by it's 'problem' is it has near eradicated virus spread and the virus within Australia entirely, creating issues of how you will open up travel into and out of Australia going forward. Or being in a position like New York where the hospitals were overloaded and are stil seriously under pressure, where PPE equipment lines are still strained, where daily deaths attributed to corna virus are still in their hundreds. ? Which do you think Paphitis is the less bad problem to have right now , today ? And you want to argue that lock down was and is pointless ?

So basically, waste of time. Futile.

This is your opinion and it is ridiculous imo and ignores 'tense' entirely. Lock down in the past to date is not same as lock down going forward in to the future. It is near certain Australia could not have achieved the status it currently has where its problem now, today, is how to open Australia up to international travel when it has 'eradicated' the virus internally whilst few other places in the world have achieved this yet, WITHOUT the lock down measures it put in place.

This 'narrative' of the people who are going die of the virus are going to die of it what ever you do, so do nothing is the 'sensible' approach is to me seriously flawed. Imagine you are such a person that it is unavoidable fact that if you get this virus it will result in your death. Does it make a difference to you then if you get it today or in 6 months time or in 2 years time ? Of course it does. Sure sooner or later you are going to get it and die but the sooner or later is EVERYTHING to such a person. This is true even if you ignore the simple reality that actually every week you delay dying, better understanding of the virus is gained, better methods of treatment are gained, better understanding of which existing drugs may help in what circumstances are gained, possible new drugs and treatments are gained - such that each week your death is delayed, itself of 'value', also increases the chance that the virus will in fact NOT kill you. All of this is patently true and does not need anyone to have to seek out any expert to be be able to understand it. Can you understand it Paphitis ?

[erolz66]

So many bizarre and twisted calculations from one who I once considered to be among the most aware and intelligent posters here. Sad. The 0.37% rate is the case fatality rate. It is the probability of dying if you catch the virus. It does not mean that 0.37% of an entire population will die in one year.

So the narrative is NOT 'every one who is going to die from this virus will end up dying of it eventually what ever is done or not done, thus measures to slow down rate of infection generically in populations are futile' ? Have I misunderstood ?

Even if it is true that everyone who is going to die from this virus if they catch it today will in the end die of it anyway when they catch it later, which is far from obviously true, then the 'logic' is seriously and fundamentally flawed in my opinion. Everyone is going to die , sooner or later. Next to no one would chose 'sooner' rather than 'later'. Is this not patently obvious ? Is there no value in dying 1 week later, 1 month later , 6 months later, a year later, 2 years later simply because you are going to die anyway, sooner or later ? Is such 'going to die in the end' calculus not a serious stupid one to base decision on how to respond to the virus on?

You speak about these people who will die every year if no vaccine is found, as if nature did not have a mechanism for giving people immunity, which it does. Once you've had it, you're immune and once enough people become immune the virus can't spread any more. This is how it has been with all viruses over the millenia.

Do you know with any degree of certainty what degree of immunity the bodies response creates to this specific virus and how long that immunity lasts ? Does anyone know currently ? Can such a thing BE known currently ?

The total global death figure from Covid - taking it at face value and ignoring the way it is inflated by including many cases in which the virus was simply present in people who died of other causes - stands at about 282,000. This pales into insignificance compared to the 1.35 m who lose their lives in road accidents globally every year.

Ignore that you only ever consider and talk about how 'over estimated' these numbers might be or are and have never once mentioned or conceded that there are factors that lead to them also being 'under estimated'. Ignore that. What will you be saying, if in 6 months time or a years time or 2 years time, heaven forbid, the 280k number reaches the 1.35 million number who you claim lose their lives from RTA's globally ? If the number exceeds this 1.35 million ? Or are you saying here and now that you know with certainty the 280k number can never and will never reach these levels ?

The only difference between the two is that the world media has abandonded its normal function and turned into a machine for pouring out one hysterical, slanted, alarmist report after another, accompanied by all sorts of garish images, about this virus to turn it into a bogeyman to scare the sheeple into submission and submit to living under a surveillance regime in the mistaken belief that Big Brother will then keep them safe. Imagine the global media did nothing but report on road accidents 24/7, cherry picking the most alarming stories and statistics and serving these up in a continuous stream accompanied by gory pictures of accidents. Would the sheeple then be demanding an end to road traffic? It is the same logic as shutting down the world economy and ushering in a depression that will rival the 1930's all because of a virus that is less deadly than the flu.

Yeah back to the 'everyone who disagrees with me is a sheep and only people who agree with me are not' argument. Pah !

[Paphitis]

I mentioned that. he said we didn't get it wrong but he also said we "painted ourselves into a corner". We have reduced the number of cases but we also destroyed the economy more than we had to because in his expert opinion, he only believes we have managed to delay the onset of Chy-na Virus cases.

When your first posted the actual interview you did concede he explicitly says 'countries that lock down did NOT get it wrong'. The next time you refer to the video you claim 'he believes that lock downs like the ones in Cyprus are a waste of time'.

In other words, he doesn't believe Chy-na Virus is going away and Australia will need to close its borders indefinitely to keep those wonderful statistics which obviously isn't feasible. he said that all countries that have locked down have painted themselves in a corner which is difficult to get out of. He also mentioned school closures pointing out that it will now be difficult to reopen schools for a very long time.

What position would you rather Australia was in today, right now. Being in a position where by it's 'problem' is it has near eradicated virus spread and the virus within Australia entirely, creating issues of how you will open up travel into and out of Australia going forward. Or being in a position like New York where the hospitals were overloaded and are stil seriously under pressure, where PPE equipment lines are still strained, where daily deaths attributed to corna virus are still in their hundreds. ? Which do you think Paphitis is the less bad problem to have right now , today ? And you want to argue that lock down was and is pointless ?

So basically, waste of time. Futile.

This is your opinion and it is ridiculous imo and ignores 'tense' entirely. Lock down in the past to date is not same as lock down going forward in to the future. It is near certain Australia could not have achieved the status it currently has where its problem now, today, is how to open Australia up to international travel when it has 'eradicated' the virus internally whilst few other places in the world have achieved this yet, WITHOUT the lock down measures it put in place.

This 'narrative' of the people who are going die of the virus are going to die of it what ever you do, so do nothing is the 'sensible' approach is to me seriously flawed. Imagine you are such a person that it is unavoidable fact that if you get this virus it will result in your death. Does it make a difference to you then if you get it today or in 6 months time or in 2 years time ? Of course it does. Sure sooner or later you are going to get it and die but the sooner or later is EVERYTHING to such a person. This is true even if you ignore the simple reality that actually every week you delay dying, better understanding of the virus is gained, better methods of treatment are gained, better understanding of which existing drugs may help in what circumstances are gained, possible new drugs and treatments are gained - such that each week your death is delayed, itself of 'value', also increases the chance that the virus will in fact NOT kill you. All of this is patently true and does not need anyone to have to seek out any expert to be be able to understand it. Can you understand it Paphitis ?

He was very clear in what he said. he said he does not think Australia got it wrong but he did say that Australia is just prolonging its woes or delaying the onset of cases to a later date. By going into lock down, he believes that very little is achieved unless it is to flatten the curve to ensure health services can cope with demand.

Reading between the lines, if health services are nowhere near overwhelmed, then lock down achieves nothing at all.

he said he believes that over time, 99% of people will catch Chy-na Virus.

He also mentioned a time-frame of up to 30 o years. So, he most certainly doesn't believe there will be a vaccine.

In hindsight, I would rather Australia be in Sweden's position. No lock down on society. Businesses to remain open, domestic travel to continue, schools to remain open, and the impact on the economy which will have long lasting affects to be limited as far as is practicable. I see a far worse pandemic than Chy-na Virus if these lock downs continue.

Since Australia's Chy-na Virus problem was imported with low community transmission levels, I support the restrictions on international travel across our borders by land and sea.

If you must ask, I am not a supporter of strict lock down.

I do however support the the increase in funding for health services in preparation of the influx of Chy-na Virus cases.

[erolz66]

We should abandon all talk of 'saving lives'. The commonality of meaning and understanding that the phrase use to have between those using it has broken down and within that break down of meaning and understanding some (all to some degree but not all to same degree) are exploiting that lack of common meaning, knowingly or not, as just another way to 'support their chosen side'

Delaying the spread of covid-19 does not 'save lives'

Delaying the spread of covid-19 can does and has 'extended lifespans'.

[Paphitis]

We should abandon all talk of 'saving lives'. The commonality of meaning and understanding that the phrase use to have between those using it has broken down and within that break down of meaning and understanding some (all to some degree but not all to same degree) are exploiting that lack of common meaning, knowingly or not, as just another way to 'support their chosen side'

Delaying the spread of covid-19 does not 'save lives'

Delaying the spread of covid-19 can does and has 'extended lifespans'.

When this is all done and dusted, Australia will lose many times more lives due to the increase in suicide rates than what would be lost to Chy-na Virus. So far, we have lost 100 people to Chy-na Virus. I would like to know how many we have lost to suicide compared to last year but no one is saying anything.

For me, I am now extremely suspicious as to the real intent of the lock down policies.

[erolz66]

Reading between the lines, if health services are nowhere near overwhelmed, then lock down achieves nothing at all.

Reading between the line can easily be translated as 'twisting what he did say to claim he said what I wanted him to say but did not in fact say'.

He did NOT say "if health services are nowhere near overwhelmed, then lock down achieves nothing at all." and a child could see why such a simple claim is just not true.

[Paphitis]

Reading between the lines, if health services are nowhere near overwhelmed, then lock down achieves nothing at all.

Reading between the line can easily be translated as 'twisting what he did say to claim he said what I wanted him to say but did not in fact say'.

He did NOT say "if health services are nowhere near overwhelmed, then lock down achieves nothing at all." and a child could see why such a simple claim is just not true.

Not twisting anything at all.

It was clear that the man was not in favour of lock down. He was very clear that the world has painted itself in a corner which will now be difficult or interesting to see how they can get out of.

If what he said is true, the world will have to come out of lock down sooner or later unless they have numbers like we are seeing in new York or other parts of Europe.

Lock down most certainly achieves nothing at all when we are just kicking the can down the road. He believes 99% of people will catch this.

[erolz66]

We should abandon all talk of 'saving lives'. The commonality of meaning and understanding that the phrase use to have between those using it has broken down and within that break down of meaning and understanding some (all to some degree but not all to same degree) are exploiting that lack of common meaning, knowingly or not, as just another way to 'support their chosen side'

Delaying the spread of covid-19 does not 'save lives'

Delaying the spread of covid-19 can does and has 'extended lifespans'.

When this is all done and dusted, Australia will lose many times more lives due to the increase in suicide rates than what would be lost to Chy-na Virus. So far, we have lost 100 people to Chy-na Virus. I would like to know how many we have lost to suicide compared to last year but no one is saying anything.

For me, I am now extremely suspicious as to the real intent of the lock down policies.

Do you dispute that delaying the spread has a positive effect on extending lifespans ? Let's try starting with that. Yes or no ? If you can accept that delaying spread has such a positive benefit , then we could move on to 'buts'. Or if you position is that it has no such effect then there is no point in wasting any more time.

[Kikapu]

All this talk of dying is exaggerated. Serious scientific studies put the average chance of dying if you contract Covid at around 0.37%, less than with flu, and the chance of dying is totally negligible for healthy under 50's. You face similar risks every time you take a car onto the road.

The degree of excess death this event is resulting in is not exaggerated. Nor is 'fear of this death' about personal individual risk alone. I fear for others I care about and love because they are at greater risk than me personally. Comparing to other existing risks is all well and fine but this is in addition to those risks. It is an extra risk not an alternative one.

If there are no counter measures taken against the highly contagious Covid-19 disease, even at .37% death rate, we are looking at 26 million dead people a year just from the virus alone if no vaccine is found. WHO gives the mortality rate at 3.4% is 240 million dead people a year. That is a lot of people to just say, "Too Bad" but the economy and the rest of us must live on!

So many bizarre and twisted calculations from one who I once considered to be among the most aware and intelligent posters here. Sad. The 0.37% rate is the case fatality rate. It is the probability of dying if you catch the virus. It does not mean that 0.37% of an entire population will die in one year. You speak about these people who will die every year if no vaccine is found, as if nature did not have a mechanism for giving people immunity, which it does. Once you've had it, you're immune and once enough people become immune the virus can't spread any more. This is how it has been with all viruses over the millenia. The idea that any one virus will continue killing people in perpetuity flies in the face of all scientific and empirical knowledge. The figures you quote bear no relation to fact. The total global death figure from Covid - taking it at face value and ignoring the way it is inflated by including many cases in which the virus was simply present in people who died of other causes - stands at about 282,000. This pales into insignificance compared to the 1.35 m who lose their lives in road accidents globally every year. The only difference between the two is that the world media has abandonded its normal function and turned into a machine for pouring out one hysterical, slanted, alarmist report after another, accompanied by all sorts of garish images, about this virus to turn it into a bogeyman to scare the sheeple into submission and submit to living under a surveillance regime in the mistaken belief that Big Brother will then keep them safe. Imagine the global media did nothing but report on road accidents 24/7, cherry picking the most alarming stories and statistics and serving these up in a continuous stream accompanied by gory pictures of accidents. Would the sheeple then be demanding an end to road traffic? It is the same logic as shutting down the world economy and ushering in a depression that will rival the 1930's all because of a virus that is less deadly than the flu.

Not offended with your post, Tim. I have stated before of just being an average guy!

I am going on the numbers presented by John Hopkins University where there are 4+ million cases and 280,000+ deaths in the last 3-4 months which comes to about 7% death rate. No need to guess if these victims were result from Clovis-19 or not unless you can provide evidence that they are not victims of covid-19. There are conflicting opinions on immunity and how long it can last in the body, assuming of course that the virus does not mutate over and over or that there ever be a vaccine discovered to immune ourselves for the present virus strands but not be immune to the next virus strands once it mutates. There are so many unknowns about the covid-19, it is only prudent to take the worse case scenarios without being labeled an alarmist, unintelligent or a sheep. Alternatively, I can just bow to your formed opinions based on your superior intelligence that the death rate is only .37% and accuse Bill Gates and the Big Pharma of being in complicit in keeping us locked downed, fucking up the economy and imposing the “Big Brother” on us, more than the authorities already have on us. If you can only convince me why major world leaders would allow Bill Gates and the Big Pharma to fuck up their economy with a virus that only kills .37% (your numbers) of it’s victims, I am all ears.

[cyprusgrump]

Do you dispute that delaying the spread has a positive effect on extending lifespans ? Let's try starting with that. Yes or no ? If you can accept that delaying spread has such a positive benefit , then we could move on to 'buts'. Or if you position is that it has no such effect then there is no point in wasting any more time.

It is bizarre (well I suppose not really that bizarre having read many of your posts ) that somebody who claims their opinion is formed by FACTS and nothing but FACTS (FACTS I tells ya! ) bases their opinion on the benefits of Lockdown on entirely subjective information...

It is completely obvious from this thread that your mind from an early stage was made up on the matter - Lockdown is necessary.

Any opposing opinion that has been posted here by your fellow posters, be it their or that of experts in the field of virology, epidemiology, etc. are either ridiculed by you (because FACTS), answered with Straw Man arguments or simply ignored.

You're funny - or perhaps deranged...