Coronavirus - a real season spoiling threat?

[Le Cynique]

Your orignal post very much suggested that. And I can't recall any posts that suggest experts shouldn't be listened to at all on the basis of a lower intelligence.
I also think bringing intelligence levels into it is wrong. If I prove I'm more intelligent than an expert, it doesn't mean I know more or am better qualified on a particular subject - nor if he's more intelligent and an expert in his field, does it mean he's infallible and beyond questioning.

What you infer is your own look-out. If you want to chuck some outrider events of a non-expert happening upon a solution as proof that expertise is not valuable, that’s up to you. Personally I’ll put my faith in people who understand the problem intimately, have discussed and worked with others with similar levels of expertise and who base their advice on experience and science, but to each their own eh?

 

[Mumbo]

What point are you trying to make? Rather than suggest ‘if anyone wants to optimise their immune response to viral infection they should research the fat soluble vitamins’ why not summarise what you think people should be doing?

If you’re saying that a deficiency in A and D3 can lead to a weaker immune system, then I agree. I take supplements because I’ve got low A (according to blood tests) as have most people who live in England (during winter months).

I Don’t like to preach or tell people that they should be taking supplements but taking an interest and finding out for themselves so they can make their own judgments I think is ok.

 

[BushBlade]

I Don’t like to preach or tell people that they should be taking supplements but taking an interest and finding out for themselves so they can make their own judgments I think is ok.

Just realised I typed A when I meant D, I’m deficient in D. FFS.

 

[AWetFlannel]

We live in a time where "scientist" has become the new Priest from the middle ages - when it was unthinkable to question someone who had access to knowledge that the ordinary person did not. There is nothing to stop a lay person informing himself and becoming an expert on a matter. There is nothing wrong with a lay person applying his own cognitive abilities to the information put before him and forming his own opinions.
The world has not got to the point it has by everyone kowtowing to anyone with a higher "scientific status". In fact, in most areas, when you look at the scientists themselves, they are disagreeing with each other all the time. It's how advances are made.
As I say, if people want to play the card that experts know better and shouldn't be questioned by lay people, then fine, but I doubt they really think that and will be back criticising football managers, politicians and various other experts in the morning. It's just an argument being used now, because it suits.

If there are any lay people that have informed themselves to any sort of standard on this forum I'm all ears.

Thinking about it for half an hour and presuming that hundreds of scientists that devote their lives to the subject haven't thought the same thing is just pathetic.

Being an expert goes beyond what common sense can manage. Our brains aren't designed to understand the universe, so when things get complicated our intuitions don't get us very far.

Just as I expect people to value my superior knowledge on swimming, Final Fantasy and who's hard in Doncaster, I respect that it takes an amount of time the vast majority of us won't spend to attain such knowledge in science.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Seriously ? Are you one of his many offspring.

That's reassuring, thanks. That mop-haired power-hungry buffoon is of course beyond criticism because he's an "expert in politics and in running the country." I stand corrected.

You two don't really think that was said without sarcasm, do you?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

.....

that’s not what I said at all. My point is, we’re not addressing the experts directly to question them. It’s not that I don’t value people’s opinions, it’s just that I place more value on the opinion of someone who is a specialist in their field. I don’t think that’s a particularly bizarre approach. If I distrust the diagnosis a doctor gives me, I would seek an opinion from another doctor, rather than a car mechanic or a plumber.

Fine, but I don't understand what you're saying about "on a football forum" if it isn't that the opinions posted here are pretty worthless.

 

[Bladesthorpe]

You two don't really think that was said without sarcasm, do you?

That's why I put seriously !

 

[Dkc]

You two don't really think that was said without sarcasm, do you?

Sorry, I had a whoosh moment

 

[BushBlade]

Fine, but I don't understand what you're saying about "on a football forum" if it isn't that the opinions posted here are pretty worthless.

Because we’re posting on a football forum. Not a forum of experts who are peer reviewing each other’s work. It’s a bunch of lay people discussing things in layman’s terms and will have no effect whatsoever on government policy. So we shouldn’t be too precious about our opinions.

Anyway, this has become too much like General Chat so I’m out.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

On a response to an epidemic? Seriously?

There is nothing to stop a lay person informing him or herself and becoming an expert – after a number of years of study, research, and practice.

What you infer is your own look-out. If you want to chuck some outrider events of a non-expert happening upon a solution as proof that expertise is not valuable, that’s up to you. Personally I’ll put my faith in people who understand the problem intimately, have discussed and worked with others with similar levels of expertise and who base their advice on experience and science, but to each their own eh?

If there are any lay people that have informed themselves to any sort of standard on this forum I'm all ears.

Thinking about it for half an hour and presuming that hundreds of scientists that devote their lives to the subject haven't thought the same thing is just pathetic.

Being an expert goes beyond what common sense can manage. Our brains aren't designed to understand the universe, so when things get complicated our intuitions don't get us very far.

Just as I expect people to value my superior knowledge on swimming, Final Fantasy and who's hard in Doncaster, I respect that it takes an amount of time the vast majority of us won't spend to attain such knowledge in science.

If you three, and others who agree with you, aren't vegans, don't drive electric cars and haven't sacrificed flying on holiday, then your arguments are bankrupt, since that is what many scientific experts are telling us is destroying the world, a far more serious problem than this virus.
So are you?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Because we’re posting on a football forum. Not a forum of experts who are peer reviewing each other’s work. It’s a bunch of lay people discussing things in layman’s terms and will have no effect whatsoever on government policy. So we shouldn’t be too precious about our opinions.

Anyway, this has become too much like General Chat so I’m out.

Right, I see. I'm arguing against the assertion that we shouldn't have opinions of our own, unless that opinion is to do what the "experts" say, whoever is nominated as an expert at that particular moment.

 

[dc_blade]

We live in a complex society and put our lives in the hands of “experts” every day in multiple ways. The sudden desire to question the experts almost always emerges when we find what they’re saying politically problematic (say, climate change) or personally inconvenient (the current crisis).

 

[AWetFlannel]

If you three, and others who agree with you, aren't vegans, don't drive electric cars and haven't sacrificed flying on holiday, then your arguments are bankrupt, since that is what many scientific experts are telling us is destroying the world, a far more serious problem than this virus.
So are you?

We could agree with the scientists and still act against them, so that doesn't really work.

For a laugh though, I'm actually vegan, don't drive and haven't flown abroad in a few years...

 

[MobileBlade]

Got drinking last night with a Cardiff season ticket holder who still loves Neil. What's the Estrella equivalent of toomanycoronosvirus?

 

[Cerberus Blade]

If there are any lay people that have informed themselves to any sort of standard on this forum I'm all ears.

Thinking about it for half an hour and presuming that hundreds of scientists that devote their lives to the subject haven't thought the same thing is just pathetic.

Being an expert goes beyond what common sense can manage. Our brains aren't designed to understand the universe, so when things get complicated our intuitions don't get us very far.

Just as I expect people to value my superior knowledge on swimming, Final Fantasy and who's hard in Doncaster, I respect that it takes an amount of time the vast majority of us won't spend to attain such knowledge in science.

Not all football fans are unintelligent and in menial jobs. We have people with specialist knowledge and expertise on here across a range of disciplines. Personally I think it’s great to have these discussions about health, law, politics, sport, cars, travel, construction work, whatever.

“Experts” are not always right of course and they do disagree with each other and change their minds in the light of new evidence and experience.

I don’t think anyone who is an expert actually calls themselves one. That’s a good way to tell!

 

[Nick Jansky]

Common sense is trusting one's own judgement and experience.

And also knowing when not to because others might know better.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

If you three, and others who agree with you, aren't vegans, don't drive electric cars and haven't sacrificed flying on holiday, then your arguments are bankrupt, since that is what many scientific experts are telling us is destroying the world, a far more serious problem than this virus.
So are you?

No, but I’ve probably cut down on about 80% of meat I consume in a year, don’t own a car (and if I ever buy one again, it will be electric) and have cut down on plane use where it’s in my control. Though I’m not sure why if I didn’t my arguments would be “bankrupt”, given I’m not questioning the conclusions of the evidence that each of those would be good steps to take as an individual...

 

[Harry's Game]

These people aren’t standing a metre apart..

 

[Nick Jansky]

Right, I see. I'm arguing against the assertion that we shouldn't have opinions of our own, unless that opinion is to do what the "experts" say, whoever is nominated as an expert at that particular moment.

Opinions are worth far more if they are well informed. Usually the best way to become well informed on any subject is to understand what people who know a lot about that subject are saying.

Uninformed opinions don't count for much.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

We could agree with the scientists and still act against them, so that doesn't really work.

For a laugh though, I'm actually vegan, don't drive and haven't flown abroad in a few years...

Good for you! Are you doing it for the planet or for other reasons?
I would say it does work, because agreeing with the scientists and not doing what they say is surely worse.

 

[Le Cynique]

If you three, and others who agree with you, aren't vegans, don't drive electric cars and haven't sacrificed flying on holiday, then your arguments are bankrupt, since that is what many scientific experts are telling us is destroying the world, a far more serious problem than this virus.
So are you?

aaaaaand on that I’m out

 

[Hamburg Blade]

No, but I’ve probably cut down on about 80% of meat I consume in a year, don’t own a car (and if I ever buy one again, it will be electric) and have cut down on plane use where it’s in my control. Though I’m not sure why if I didn’t my arguments would be “bankrupt”, given I’m not questioning the conclusions of the evidence that each of those would be good steps to take as an individual...

Good for you too. I've also cut down on the meat to probably the same degree, but not to save the planet.
Bankrupt may not have been the right word, it was the first that came to mind. My point is that there are experts all over the place telling us all sorts of things we should do, but we don't just do it on the basis that they're experts. Someone has to define expert in the first place. I'm not arguing that we should ignore experts, I'm arguing against the argument that arose that we should simply defer to the experts and do as they say.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

aaaaaand on that I’m out

Why? Either you stand by your assertions that you should do what the experts tell you to do, or you're only using the argument now because it suits.

 

[Houso]

Good for you too. I've also cut down on the meat to probably the same degree, but not to save the planet.
Bankrupt may not have been the right word, it was the first that came to mind. My point is that there are experts all over the place telling us all sorts of things we should do, but we don't just do it on the basis that they're experts. Someone has to define expert in the first place. I'm not arguing that we should ignore experts, I'm arguing against the argument that arose that we should simply defer to the experts and do as they say.

But there's a big difference between "do as the experts say" when it comes to methods to tackle the spread of CV (and the effectiveness of doing so) and accepting "what the experts say" in terms of how dangerous CV is. The constant barrage of whataboutery (the flu, climate change, austerity etc etc" is the thing getting on my tits.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Opinions are worth far more if they are well informed. Usually the best way to become well informed on any subject is to understand what people who know a lot about that subject are saying.

Uninformed opinions don't count for much.

Of course, but the level and area of someone's information is also fairly subjective. At the end of the day the PM will take expert advice from various people on various subjects, the virus, the economy, money available, logistics, and then make a decision, probably with more advice from his political advisors. Then he has to make a decision on how to act, which will undoubtedly be a compromise on all areas - areas the PM is not an expert in.
It's all a question of balance.

 

[Le Cynique]

Why? Either you stand by your assertions that you should do what the experts tell you to do, or you're only using the argument now because it suits.

Because your use of reductio ad absurdum to bolster your argument proves that you're not interested in actual debate and more interested in using whatever logical devices you can to 'win'. Therefore I see no point in continuing the conversation.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Because your use of reductio ad absurdum to bolster your argument proves that you're not interested in actual debate and more interested in using whatever logical devices you can to 'win'. Therefore I see no point in continuing the conversation.

Fair enough if that's how you see it. I don't particularly think it's absurd to ask if you apply the same principles to different situations, but there you go.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Of course, but the level and area of someone's information is also fairly subjective. At the end of the day the PM will take expert advice from various people on various subjects, the virus, the economy, money available, logistics, and then make a decision, probably with more advice from his political advisors. Then he has to make a decision on how to act, which will undoubtedly be a compromise on all areas - areas the PM is not an expert in.
It's all a question of balance.

It is. But it’s also a question of politics. This is what I was saying the other day.

No one is doubting the seriousness of this coronavirus but we have faced more serious viral outbreaks (more people affected/more deaths/less selective in terms of the “at risk” population) in the not too distant past (swine flu) and the public response was nowhere near on this scale.

Ok so some will say “that’s because we had a vaccine for it”, but that doesn’t explain it actually because the vaccine is only effective if taken in the first 48 hours and the majority of those affected were not diagnosed and treated in that time period.

The main medical issue with this is that we don’t know enough about it, in particular how it is being transmitted. That’s a major concern.

The strategy at the present time is to act to delay the spread, through hygiene measures and public awareness. The next stage is containment, and that’s where we start introducing restrictions on movement of people and gatherings at public events.

That next stage is a huge step to take and has serious social and economic consequences. The person I spoke with earlier this week IS an expert in this field and is one of many advisors to the government on this.

His view is similar to what I’ve described, I.e. based on what we know so far the level of public anxiety being raised is disproportionate to the threat. However, he thinks we will inevitably move to the containment phase within a matter of weeks or even days, because the political risks in not doing so outweigh the medical ones.

Interesting times indeed!

 

[ChrisBlade]

A friend of mine I went to school with emigrated to Italy thirty years ago. He works as a doctor at a hospital in Bozen, South Tirol. They are currently experiencing the start of the more serious wave of cases, but are nothing as bad yet as in, say, Milano.

He says it is like nothing he has ever known because doctors that have never really seen themselves as making large-scale decisions about life or death on an industrial scale are increasingly placed in a position to just do that. The mild cases are just that, mild. Then there are cases that a person will clearly survive with certain discomfort, if only they are given the beds or the respirators. And then there are tons of people who need more service than can be offered to all. So you are having to chance it with several patients each day, knowing your decision who gets machinery for how long will have severe consequences for the ones without access. Death being one of those potential consequences.

That does not yet touch on the ethics of quarantining healthy people who carry the virus on the staff if civilization in the hospital is stretched or breaking down. He says that there are now areas of Italy where doctors who carry it or have mild symptoms still work in order to stem the ballooning figures. It IS a horrible situation, the like of which he has not experienced before, having been born in the late sixties.

Now the Italians may have been tardy or unprepared. Unlike other countries they also probably never knew patient 1, let alone patient 1 to 100. So they could not contain it early or trace it once it raised its head.

But he is awaiting his own test result today as a colleague tested positive. So his advice was to take it seriously early on as the hard cases of the ones who do not make it are nasty deaths. They are in pain breathing, with their lungs filling up with slime that you need to get out with machinery or you literally die of not having enough oxygen in your body.

In his words, it is not as much the disease itself as the flood of same symptoms of something normally relatively rare or contained that strangles the life out of the staff and the system.

While the numbers are still low, personally, I would limit my non-vital fun. I probably would currently forfeit the movies. I walk or cycle to work even on grey and horrible days, rather than public transport. But the stuff that makes my life happy and is needed to compensate for the pain of existing - notably, taking the kids to their various fun activities and sports, the odd concerts I have tickets for and the Blades matches - I will only stop engaging in if I either have first hand experience of the kind of squeeze my friend describes or the state takes the decision out of my hand.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

A friend of mine I went to school with emigrated to Italy thirty years ago. He works as a doctor at a hospital in Bozen, South Tirol. They are currently experiencing the start of the more serious wave of cases, but are nothing as bad yet as in, say, Milano.

He says it is like nothing he has ever known because doctors that have never really seen themselves as making large-scale decisions about life or death on an industrial scale are increasingly placed in a position to just do that. The mild cases are just that, mild. Then there are cases that a person will clearly survive with certain discomfort, if only they are given the beds or the respirators. And then there are tons of people who need more service than can be offered to all. So you are having to chance it with several patients each day, knowing your decision who gets machinery for how long will have severe consequences for the ones without access. Death being one of those potential consequences.

That does not yet touch on the ethics of quarantining healthy people who carry the virus on the staff if civilization in the hospital is stretched or breaking down. He says that there are now areas of Italy where doctors who carry it or have mild symptoms still work in order to stem the ballooning figures. It IS a horrible situation, the like of which he has not experienced before, having been born in the late sixties.

Now the Italians may have been tardy or unprepared. Unlike other countries they also probably never knew patient 1, let alone patient 1 to 100. So they could not contain it early or trace it once it raised its head.

But he is awaiting his own test result today as a colleague tested positive. So his advice was to take it seriously early on as the hard cases of the ones who do not make it are nasty deaths. They are in pain breathing, with their lungs filling up with slime that you need to get out with machinery or you literally die of not having enough oxygen in your body.

In his words, it is not as much the disease itself as the flood of same symptoms of something normally relatively rare or contained that strangles the life out of the staff and the system.

While the numbers are still low, personally, I would limit my non-vital fun. I probably would currently forfeit the movies. I walk or cycle to work even on grey and horrible days, rather than public transport. But the stuff that makes my life happy and is needed to compensate for the pain of existing - notably, taking the kids to their various fun activities and sports, the odd concerts I have tickets for and the Blades matches - I will only stop engaging in if I either have first hand experience of the kind of squeeze my friend describes or the state takes the decision out of my hand.

Really like your post. Gives a fascinating insight into what those at the coal-face, treating the infection, are dealing with.

I travelled to Switzerland today, I was supposed to attending an infection Congress, I chaired it last year but this time I am just here as a delegate. It was cancelled a week ago due to an infection! (Coronavirus).

I have other business here so I kept my travel plans as they were. In any case, it’s not a bad place to spend a few days. Bright sunshine here and 18c. (Amuses me when people think Switzerland is a cold country! It is, in the mountains, but it’s generally much milder than the UK).

Manchester airport was deserted though - never ever seen it like that before!