27

!dev

So, Boris Johnson just got moved to intensive care. Fucking poetic Justice if I've ever seen it.

Comments
  • 7
    Wow. I am so sad. I can't believe that happened. So so sad.
  • 8
    @cantthinkofone
    I'm gonna fucking pray for him. For real. Gather hands ya'll

    "Ave satanam plena odio. Quod per sanctificetur nomen tuum..."
     
  • 24
    That idiot used to promote herd immunity back in March and refused serious measures early on when they would have been most useful. He even mentioned the consequence that quite some families would lose relatives before their time. Yeah Mr. Johnson, looks like the Johnson family will be among them, given your age.

    What a rare incident that a politician actually suffers himself from the consequences of his own misguided policies, and not only, as usually, the rest of the population.
  • 9
    @Fast-Nop
    I just take all the people downvoting this are in support of British people dying for his hubris.
  • 5
    Isn't there a shortage of such beds at the moment..

    Does that mean someone else got tossed out to make room for him ?

    I guess someone has to make these difficult decisions.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop

    But isn't the herd immunity approach the best solution ?

    I first noticed it (Around the same time a few others did..) when the wording of government advice became like the same as when you ask your romantic partner if they cheated on someone, they don't answer yes, but they don't answer no either..

    Then it dawned on me, it sounds like they want folk to catch it..

    Then I read a bit more about that approach, I understood it is actually a good solution.

    Is there a better solution ?

    Related links:

    https://weforum.org/agenda/2020/...

    https://technologynetworks.com/immu...

    https://washingtonpost.com/graphics...
  • 0
    I wonder if we will see another leader of a country end up in hospital, or worse from the virus ?
  • 1
    @Nanos

    From one of the above URL's:

    ----------------

    Considering current strategies being employed to slow the spread of disease, Dr Thomas House, Reader in Mathematical Statistics, University of Manchester commented “Social distancing measures do not lead to herd immunity, so when they are lifted the epidemic may grow again. Whether we aim for it or not, herd immunity will happen at some point in the future since neither a growing epidemic nor social distancing measures can continue forever, and the aim of policy should be for this to happen with the minimum human cost possible.”

    -------------

    So, unless you live in a bunker on a small island far away from anyone else..

    And wait for a vaccine to be produced in about 2 years time, your options are limited..
  • 4
    @Nanos
    Herd immunity strategies are only ethical if you have vaccines. The problem with trying to achieve it with a full strength virus is you're giving it a chance to spread, grow and mutate and in the process saying those who die are acceptable losses. Using a dramatically weakened strained has almost no chance of achieving a contagious stage, hence why recently vaccinated children are allowed to attend school.

    So yeah, make a vaccine and I'll be right there with you on herd immunity.
  • 4
    Sooooo, those that are cheering on the suffering of someone else are shitty people. Feel how you want, but try to be gracious out loud.
  • 4
    @monkeyboy
    You should tell that to the 5300+ people his negligence has killed, and the thousands more that will die.

    You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I have no interest in being a janus-faced coward censoring myself for social convenience.
  • 7
    You guys are all awful. In case you were wondering, wishing for or deriving pleasure from death and suffering of others, “poetic” or not does not make you look right, it doesn’t prove that your political position is valid. It just makes you look like you’re 15. There is nothing poetic about dead people.

    This issue is complicated anybody who thinks it isn’t is fucking stupid. All of my neighbors have lost their jobs and it’s not looking like they’re going to get another one any time soon, and it’s not like they have cash reserves to you know pay their damn rent. Dead people isn’t funny but make no mistake, this isn’t a fucking party over here either.
  • 3
    @Nanos Unless there's a vaccine, that approach will not work without the health system collapsing or instead telling a lot of people to go home and die.

    If you do the math how many intensive care places are there on the one hand, and over how long you'd have to stretch the crisis to keep the number of IC patients below that capacity, the result is at least TEN YEARS.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested I’d love to see the alternate world where negligence didn’t kill anyone. I wonder how those 5300 people would have died.

    The problem is complex and the solutions are not easy. Frankly I pity the people that have to make them.
  • 6
    @FrodoSwaggins
    This isn't a joke. He declined to make any decision. There's a difference between your neighbors and someone who is the leader of a government. He had power and responsibility to protect people. He callously disregarded that responsibility and instead adopted a stance that tens of thousands of deaths was an acceptable cost. He regarded himself as invincible. That is the behavior of a tyrant.

    Boris is empowered, he is a regime. He is not a civilian. He created and represents the failed policies of the party he leads, and the hubris and disdain for the citizens of the UK that will cost 10s of thousands of lives. He caused those deaths with his willful ignorance and hubris. It's his responsibility, and he was remorseless in the face of death and disaster.

    The only bright spot in all of this is the thought that he, or his party might wake up and learn something from this disaster when it directly effects them. You, me, your neighbors, we are powerless to fix any of this. The only people who can fix something of this scale are the people who have the full power of nations and Boris was maliciously, willfully disregarding the health and safety of the people whose lives he was responsible for saving. The people in denial need a wake up call, or we are all fucked.

    So, apologies if I'm not the least bit sorry for being even darkly pleased by the self-destruction of a man who has killed more than 5000 people.
  • 2
    @FrodoSwaggins Yeah, the first people in China had a hard time. After that, people could have learnt from what happened before, that would have been intelligent.

    When Johnson was still into herd immunity, the Italian army was already called in to haul the corpes away in army trucks. On the other hand, e.g. Taiwan had done much better.

    So it would have been enough to conclude "let's do it like Taiwan, not like Italy".
  • 1
    @SortOfTested that’s not my point.

    You can make this argument about anything. “Why DIDNT you do it the way I think it should have been done? EVERYTHING would have been GREAT if you did it my way” -said everybody ever

    Maybe but we’ll never know and you’re only saying that because things weren’t done that way and the result was anything but perfect.

    Hell, if the country was shut down zipped tight and put under martial law, and still a to of people died and the economy was laid waste to, we could be the same discussion and you would have favored a more lenient shutdown. That didn’t happen, so I can’t tell you what that universe holds.

    This is a complex issue. Anyone who thinks shut down, “save lives”(and that’s not even a guarantee), fuck the economy and anything else that matters is delusional. Its way to easy to sit back and say we could have done something different.

    In a supposedly free world how are you supposed to look 50 million people in the eye and say “fuck you but you’re taking out loans to pay the next three months rent, and it’ll take you three years to work it off.” Those costs are not being considered when medical professionals tell us we have to grind to a halt for a year and optimize for human life.

    Besides, I can’t take you seriously if you’re going to sit here and say he killed 5000 people. Least of all because every decision that any politician has ever made has killed somebody.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop define intelligent though. Every method of dealing with this right now has had a cost, and unless it is eradicated we don’t yet have much meaningful basis to judge the success of everyone’s measures. I.e. what does it mean to contain it if it just spreads again the second you decide it’s over and relax those measures?
  • 2
    @FrodoSwaggins The UK has enough money to support its economy for a bridge time during crisis, and to have a health care system that isn't like shit. But well, if they prefer to waste their money e.g. on fucking aircraft carriers in the 21st century like it's still WW2, then these are hard priorities.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop can you really say that you’ve calculated the cost that it will truly work out that way? I’m not saying I’d bet money that the parliament did either but how many people losing work and their homes and being out on the street is an acceptable loss? How many landlords being told they can’t evict non-paying tenants and having to just eat it and them being totally destroyed is considered an acceptable loss? How many people dying anyway despite measures is considered an acceptable loss? How much is a human life worth?

    Hard questions, tough balancing game.
  • 2
    @FrodoSwaggins Given that LATER, they decided on lock-down anyway, that question is answered. They could have done that already by looking at other countries and decide which one they'd want to emulate. But waiting until the crisis hits home and only THEN decide to act, that's downright stupid.

    And the rest of the problems - hey, in 2008, goverments shelled out huge amounts of money to save fucking banks. Maybe shelling out money to help ordinary taxpayers would be an option, too. Then you won't have people in the streets.

    It's not like the government is helpless. They are the only player in the game who can change the rules - ultimately, because they have enough men under weapons.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop almost every country that has been hit has reacted the same way though, and I don’t really expect that to change for any other countries holding out.

    Unfortunately, preemptive lockdown will inevitably be viewed as a dictator move as well. For the majority of people, if there “isn’t a problem” they’re going to be pissed off if you try to fix it. Worse, if nobody in your country is sick, then what is the end condition for the lockdown? Even with things locked down now I don’t think I’ve heard a good answer to that question. As a matter of fact my money is on countries cracking from the economic pressure a few months in, removing the restrictions, and then the disease spreading like wildfire. Then we’ll by asking ourselves why we /did/ lockdown only for it to end like this. And then the question is answered. So that works both ways as well.

    State governments have tried to cancel elections in the USA because of containment concerns. Like can you do that!?!!? Nobody has faced that question before in this context or any even remotely related.
  • 1
    @FrodoSwaggins True, many people don't understand the idea of prevention. However, that's just a PR question. Showing the pictures of Italian army trucks hauling away hundreds of corpses should do the trick. It's not like governments can't spin the PR machine, they do it all the time whenever they want to promote whatever agenda they have. As for when to end the lock-down, that question comes up no matter when you start it.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop side note about the USA 2008 bail outs, I’m not sure if that’s always the right move either, and weighing the costs of that is non-trivial. The USA in particular is headed toward economic trouble with its budget and continuing to conjure money out of nowhere time and time again is a pretty short fuse that is burning fast.
  • -1
    @Fast-Nop still has no answer for either scenario :shrug:
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop need to sleep, I’ll talk politics all night if I don’t draw a line. Will check tomorrow
  • 1
    @FrodoSwaggins Actually, the most straight-forward answer is "14 days" if you don't have cases yet, and then keeping borders closed until shit is under control elsewhere.

    Then good night! :-)
  • 0
    @SortOfTested

    But we won't have a vaccine for like 2 years, what do we do before then ?
  • 0
    I'm reminded about the idea / solution of 'containment', since in the early days it was thought that it could be stopped if you just isolated everyone who came into contact with everyone who had it.

    Then folk started to appear infected who they had no idea how they got infected.

    So you can't stop the spread 100% even with our best efforts, thus all you can do is slow down the transmission rate.

    Which leads you to the herd solution one way or another.

    The question then is, can you reduce the death rate over a period of time low enough that your health service can cope with.

    Whilst at the same time, increasing your health resources to try and match the expected number of ill people.

    Where I am, there is reckoned to be a large gap between the two and as such, some 2% of the population will die as a result.

    It's only 2%, not the end of the world. :-)
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop

    > Taiwan had done much better.

    For now..
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop

    How do you keep borders closed when people wander across our borders illegally all the time ?

    Isn't the answer 28 days rather than 14.

    And then, what do you do when cases pop up, even though your border is locked down ?
  • 0
    This should be the kind of problem we eat for breakfast..

    Since it can be modelled in software, we should be able to figure out the best solution given a few variables.
  • 1
    @Nanos Wandering across UK's borders is a bit more difficult, geographically. Also, 28 days isn't for Corona, that's for the zombie apocalypse, see "28 days later".
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop

    Wandering across UK borders is surprisingly easy !

    Now if you are trying to get out of NK, that's much harder !

    https://medrxiv.org/content/...

    ---------

    Is a 14-day quarantine period optimal for effectively controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

    ---------

    The full range of incubation periods of the Covid-19 cases ranged from 0 to 33 days among 2015 cases.

    ---------
  • 1
    @Nanos With 33 days, it's not clear whether people actually got infected much later, but with less obvious contact.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop

    FX [ Waits for film to be called "33 Days Later".. ]
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop the issue is 14 days is enough if you can guarantee absolutely nobody contracts it in that time. You and I both know how that is going to work out.
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins

    Don't forget to quarantine your parcels and post too, since you could catch it off those as well !

    And keep your windows closed in case a passing neighbour sneezes within 26 feet of you..
  • 2
    @FrodoSwaggins It's of course difficult if most surrounding governments fail to understand the point of prevention and are in reactive mode. But that's kinda the point, it's not like it arrived out of nowhere.

    And yes, now it's going to be really expensive. That's the bill for hesitating in January and February. It's also the consequence of large parts of the population, politicians included, failing to understand primary school math like exponential growth.

    On the upside, Corona is not like Ebola, so we got a not-as-serious test of how our systems cope with a pandemic: not that well.

    Oh, and you know why e.g. Taiwan fared better? Because unlike Western countries, they drew consequences from the SARS shit in the early 2000s. They showed the behaviour you'd expect among a species that gives itself "sapiens" as species name: intelligent behaviour, involving learning from past mistakes.
  • 0
    https://history.com/news/...

    https://nationalgeographic.com/hist...

    --------------

    St. Louis had strong social distanc-

    ing measures and a low total death

    rate. The city successfully delayed

    its peak in deaths, but faced a sharp

    increase when restrictions were

    temporarily relaxed.

    --------------
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop i still don’t know if I buy what you’re saying.

    Take the USA for example. There were Americans abroad in december/January. about 100 of them were sick.

    So already you’re faced with a choice. Lock them out or recall everyone. Both options suck.

    Now suppose we locked down in January because as you say this did not come out of nowhere. If you brought those Americans home, people have it. Even if you didn’t, chances are someone in the country already has it. This disease is extremely contagious; you lock down, it doesn’t really spread so to speak but it doesn’t completely die away.

    Now it’s April and you’ve been locked down for four months. In that time the problem hasn’t gone away globally and the only way to ensure that it doesn’t spread like wildfire within your borders is to be on lockdown.

    You may not have many cases at this point but a lot of cases is realistically what you’re looking at if you relax restrictions. So this becomes a “now what?” Scenario.

    This is why I fundamentally believe that the success of countries that did well acting early and containing it remains to be seen. Is having few people getting sick but being on never ending lockdown for two years really winning?
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins Either bring these 100 home, but quarantine them including the crews immediately, or if they refuse that, block them out of the country for the next month.

    And yeah, we have a problem now because you're right that home office and such is good, but the lockdown for localised professions can't go on for extended time.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop the lockdown more or less doesn’t affect me so I count my blessings. I haven’t even started my car in 5 weeks and I barely noticed.

    We brought those 100 home and quarantined them. A month later 100k were sick.

    If we’re being real there’s a serious chance (>50%) the community spread didn’t start from the quarantined people but there’s no guarantee that it didn’t either. When you have 300 million people in your country the only way to control all the variables is martial law, total lockdown. So that’s how you end up in that “what now” scenario.
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins All the handwaving about how nothing can be done doesn't change the fact that Taiwan did much better than Italy, or the US.

    Look, as always in life, winners find solutions while losers find reasons why it can't possibly work.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop for the aforementioned reasons, we’ll know who the winners were in about two years.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop it’s extremely naive to blatantly label those who considered the whole picture as losers. If this was as simple as shut everything down and it will be fine, that would have been done already. Guaranteed, 100%

    I think I’ve made that abundantly clear in this thread.
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins Yeah, we have two sorts of countries... those that hesitated with drastic measures early on, and those that didn't. Those who are complaining the most about the horrendous economic costs are the first kind. You seem to be surprised by that, I'm not.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop more this is the same class of mistake that I hear over and over again in public forums. “Canada doesn’t have any healthcare problems! Taiwan doesn’t have COVID problems! China doesn’t have anti-government protesting problems!”

    I’m sure all these experts know so much about how many problems these countries don’t have.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop I’m neither surprised nor not surprised by that. My ONLY point is even considering the death toll of COVID it’s still not obvious that there is a best case solution when you consider all factors, and I’m sick of people talking about how the solution was so easy if only we did it the way they thought we should have. Because of course.
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins OK, but maybe we can agree that first ignoring shit when preventive measures would have been most useful, and later on, changing game and locking down anyway - that's outright stupid.

    Either you say, fuck millions of (well, not only...) old people, let them die, that's good for the pension system and economy. That's what Brazil does - at least the government; the mafia has decided on lockdown in the favelas.

    Or you say this is mass murder and needs to be prevented, but then as effectively and cheaply as possible. And no, "who could have known" isn't going to fly. Everyone watching world wide news not only could have known, but knew.

    Actually, governments should have pandemic plans ready because SARS already was such an incident in 2003 (which is why Taiwan made such plans), so even not having plans ready counts as failure.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop you should run for public office then. Not being facetious. If you have a solution that matters, bring about the change.
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins *sigh* Please re-read the last paragraph of the previous posting.

    And here in Germany, our "health minister" is a bank economist without any medical expertise. Politicians aren't chosen by competence, but by their standing within their party. Which is part of the problem.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop well you just got done telling me that nobody did the right thing so clearly one country doing what you *think* is the right thing doesn’t mean this pandemic didn’t happen.
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins That's the funniest way I ever saw of how to handwave away even practical evidence of a successful strategy. If you aren't going to accept empirical evidence, you aren't going to accept anything, and you aren't going to care about reality. The discussion is pointless. Go believe what you want.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop I’ll believe whatever the evidence tells me to believe once I have it, and I’m unfortunately not in a position to do anything useful with any evidence. Hence my suggestion. No need to he crabby. I’m sure this really was as simple as lock down your borders and there will be no downsides. I don’t know what you want me to do, solve the worlds problems as soon as you convince me it’s easy!?

    We have too many “experts” who are willing to take some evidence, assert it supports their position whether that’s true or not, but then not take any action to make a difference. That doesn’t help anyone.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop let’s back up a second though, because we’ve become highly side tracked. My position on this is and only is:

    1. Saying we need to maximize for human life and ignore other costs which could potentially be equally dire is not only short sighted but circular
    2. “What Taiwan did” is not only hindsight but the merit remains to be seen (I.e. if there is a resurgence when they lift the restrictions and when that will happen)
    3. You were not in a position to weigh these costs and come up with an optimal solution and I don’t believe that anyone here (including myself and the public officials who made these decisions) has put the time in to consider what the net cost is going to be cross functionally with whether to shut down or not. The most obvious cost factor is the human life factor but there are others, and it’s non obvious to assign weights to those
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop this is different than saying what Taiwan did is fundamentally unsuccessful. Instead it’s saying that “Taiwan did this and it seems to be ok” flies for burden of proof on social media platforms for SOFTWARE ENGINEERS but not when you’re the prime minister and you have to convince 100 angry politicians to shut down the economy.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop the only last thing I say is that I disagree with the statement that “we ended up here therefore it was stupid that we didn’t do this right away”

    I’m not saying this isn’t stupid but we’re talking about making decisions that you said nobody was prepared to make and it can’t be done over night. If you were the PM and were told you need to quarantine the whole country would it be done within the hour? Especially if the country isn’t infra-structurally prepared? Decisions like that can’t be made in an instant except in cases where you’re prepared to make them.

    This isn’t about what can be done it’s aboutwhat happened unless we’re discussing hindsight. This isn’t about whether we should have been prepared, it’s that facts are facts and we were NOT prepared. Good for Taiwan for being prepared. I hope it works out for them. Meanwhile, I’m going to go back to buying all my neighbors fucking groceries because they don’t have any money.

    This thread can resume wishing people were dead for making a mistake, that ought to keep us all out of hell.
  • 2
    @FrodoSwaggins That's actually part of the stupidity - SARS in 2003 clearly showed that we need to have canned plans. Globalisation, global mobility, overpopulation, yadda yadda - that's ingredients for a pandemic. We had 17 years to be prepared, and now protective gear is scarce even for medical staff, WTF?

    Meanwhile, I believe in being prepared, that's why I have a full-face gas mask along with P3 filters that actually protects me (weekly shopping) while normies even fail to have paper masks that would help to protect others.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop I fully agree with you
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop

    I usually like to have at least 3 to 6 months supplies in hand, since where I live, we could easily be cut off due to bad weather for 6 months !

    I remember once eyeing an asbestos suit in a shop window and thinking that would be ideal to keep in the wardrobe in case the house catches fire, I could just walk out through it. :-)
  • 1
    @Nanos if this was the measles then maybe it would have worked, leaving aside the loss of life during the process. But people seem to get infected even after having one or two episodes so there might be no immunity or at best selective immunity to CV after all. Now for the average joe this may not appear important but a man in his position should contemplate this possibility and not disregard it as easy as he did, chalking up hundreds of thousands of possible deaths as collateral damage in a so-called quest for his so-called herd immunity. At this point one mqy just begin to wonder "why?" and the answer isn't late to appear: money. Which if we come to think of it, is not his or theirs in the first place. So let him get well, back on his feet so he can get it the 2nd time and learn a fucking lesson he should have known long before he came into office: you don't fuck with people's lives over some money.
  • -1
    Also I got a bottle set aside for when trump gets it, if there's any chance for the universe to tend to balance itself out then he will fucking get it as well and possibly die but not before taking some of his "friends" down with him.
  • 0
    @molaram once again,screw you. Wishing death on others. Way to be a person who deserves to exist.
  • 0
    @FrodoSwaggins Okay, i admit i was in the wrong about the unsympathetic part of my comments, so i deleted them.
  • 3
    Ladies...why so serious? We’re just chatting, no need to degenerate this over different opinions. I say the fucker should suck cocks in hell, you say he shouldn’d, that’s alright, no need to be uncivilized about it.
  • 0
    @molaram

    -------

    At this point one mqy just begin to wonder "why?" and the answer isn't late to appear: money.

    -------

    I think money is a red herring answer myself.
  • 0
    _

    > people seem to get infected even after

    > having one or two episodes so there

    > might be no immunity

    Yes I've noticed that too, and trying to keep an eye on it.

    Which is more difficult since various governments have declared any news not 'government sanctioned' is to be deleted off the internet, making it harder for me to hear about it !

    Does that mean we won't be able to build a vaccine against it ?

    I assume we will, but it is a good idea to ask this question, in case the answer is no !
  • 1
    > Wishing death on others.

    I'm reminded before the virus outbreak that folk was wishing that all the time on various other groups in society..

    I hope that means we are all going to stop that kind of thing, and not just wish the people we hate..
  • 1
    Looks like Johnson has indeed learnt something. He thinks what landed him in the hospital was his obesity, given that he weighs some whooping 111kg at 175cm. That gives a BMI of 36, which is already severe obesity.

    It also spurred him on to tackle the UK's rampant obesity crisis, so something good came out of it.

    Source: https://businessinsider.com/report-...
Add Comment