Coronavirus

[buctootim]

4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Very bright academically, a former airline captain and currently in law school.

 

I guess it’s like many of the politics and social threads on here and in the wider world; once you start down the wrong path and only seek confirmation bias, even the smartest people can believe the strangest ideas.

According to this its less to do with intelligence per se and more linked to specific psychological traits.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205/full

As an aside a high proportion of people with Aspergers seem to believe in conspiracies. Probably related to difficulty in understanding the world and rationalising it. Correlations to belief in NWO, anti globalisation and Brexit imo - but thats a while different story...  

[Lighthouse]

49 minutes ago, buctootim said:

According to this its less to do with intelligence per se and more linked to specific psychological traits.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205/full

As an aside a high proportion of people with Aspergers seem to believe in conspiracies. Probably related to difficulty in understanding the world and rationalising it. Correlations to belief in NWO, anti globalisation and Brexit imo - but thats a while different story...  

I was watching a video a while back, might have been Matt Dillahunty but I honestly can’t remember now, where he explained how the assumption of a sinister, higher power was an evolutionary survival mechanism against apex predators. In humans it can manifest as superstition, religion and conspiracy theories. It’s all the same basic line of thinking. I guess for some, that could manifest as cynicism of the EU.

[buctootim]

35 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I was watching a video a while back, might have been Matt Dillahunty but I honestly can’t remember now, where he explained how the assumption of a sinister, higher power was an evolutionary survival mechanism against apex predators. In humans it can manifest as superstition, religion and conspiracy theories. It’s all the same basic line of thinking. I guess for some, that could manifest as cynicism of the EU.

Ah interesting, I'll check it out. People see the bogeyman in many different guises I guess  

[StDunko]

10am this morning the Mrs gets a text to say her latest Covid test was positive. (She works in healthcare, so has weekly tests).

What Crimbo pressie, pretty much sums up 2020. What a cunt of a year.

At least she is only fatigued (which she just thought was due to working so many hours recently), rather than suffering from other symptoms.

[Raging Bull]

31 minutes ago, StDunko said:

 What a cunt of a year.

In demand and loved by many?? 

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

In demand and loved by many?? 

It’s been the wettest on record apparently.

[AlexLaw76]

11 hours ago, StDunko said:

10am this morning the Mrs gets a text to say her latest Covid test was positive. (She works in healthcare, so has weekly tests).

What Crimbo pressie, pretty much sums up 2020. What a cunt of a year.

At least she is only fatigued (which she just thought was due to working so many hours recently), rather than suffering from other symptoms.

My Wife was confirmed positive on 20 Dec and of course, we have been isolating since.

Day 1-4, she was pretty tired (but not flaked out), cold/hot flushes and with a ticky tummy. We were more scared given the stories.

However, from xmas eve afternonon, she is fine, temp normal and blood oxygen indicates normal (we purchased a SATS probe from Amazon) but still with a niggly cough. I will probably take flack for saying this, but she states Flu has hit her harder in the past, which I know is not the case for all.

She has received periodic calls from the test and trace people just seeing how she is doing, and of course for contact details going back a number of days before the 20th, which we thought was great.

 

Best of luck, and I am sure all will be well.

Edited 26 December, 2020 by AlexLaw76

[Fan The Flames]

14 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I was watching a video a while back, might have been Matt Dillahunty but I honestly can’t remember now, where he explained how the assumption of a sinister, higher power was an evolutionary survival mechanism against apex predators. In humans it can manifest as superstition, religion and conspiracy theories. It’s all the same basic line of thinking. I guess for some, that could manifest as cynicism of the EU.

Also in the book Sapiens, the author reckons that humans became the dominant species because it's the only large species that can live in large numbers and this ability to co-operate at close quarters is due to it's tendency to believe in myths. Religion, conspiracy theories and PFC are the unfortunate side affects of this.

[whelk]

Anyone know if this is true?

 

 

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Anyone know if this is true?

 

 

Too much focus on living or dying. If that stat is correct, I'd like to know how many under 60's have ongoing complications from Covid, and what proportion are likely to be long term complications. I'd hazard a guess that it'll be many many thousands.

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Anyone know if this is true?

 

 

Seems to be 

[whelk]

42 minutes ago, egg said:

Too much focus on living or dying. If that stat is correct, I'd like to know how many under 60's have ongoing complications from Covid, and what proportion are likely to be long term complications. I'd hazard a guess that it'll be many many thousands.

But we don’t shutdown the economy on the risk of some having long term complications 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

But we don’t shutdown the economy on the risk of some having long term complications 

That's your opinion, but regardless, we've shut the economy to stop the NHS becoming overwhelmed, not for any other reason. It's pretty obvious from the hospital numbers that we had to act. Where we go is the issue - it seems our choice is carry on doing what we're doing or open it right up making it clear that the NHS is 1st come 1st served, so behave or you could be fucked. I don't advocate the latter, so the former is teh lesser of 2 evils. 

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

That's your opinion, but regardless, we've shut the economy to stop the NHS becoming overwhelmed, not for any other reason. It's pretty obvious from the hospital numbers that we had to act. Where we go is the issue - it seems our choice is carry on doing what we're doing or open it right up making it clear that the NHS is 1st come 1st served, so behave or you could be fucked. I don't advocate the latter, so the former is teh lesser of 2 evils. 

Out of interest, how many beds have been used in the Nightingale Hospitals?

[egg]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Out of interest, how many beds have been used in the Nightingale Hospitals?

No idea. Who'll staff them? Machines? You've gotta be able to service the rest of the NHS which is fucked as it is. It's comical how many people argue to let us get on with it, but then whinge that their/their wife's/their mums hospital procedure has been cancelled. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

You've gotta be able to service the rest of the NHS which is fucked as it is. 

But they’re not servicing the rest of the NHS. 

[egg]

20 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

But they’re not servicing the rest of the NHS. 

How will that improve by diverting resources to Nightingale Hospitals? 

Edited 26 December, 2020 by egg

[Whitey Grandad]

41 minutes ago, egg said:

How will that improve by diverting resources to Nightingale Hospitals? 

Then why have them if you can’t staff them?

[whelk]

So just over 4% of all the deaths have been from healthy people. Not a stat they seem to want to highlight

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Out of interest, how many beds have been used in the Nightingale Hospitals?

The one in the town I live in has never been used.

[egg]

26 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Then why have them if you can’t staff them?

No idea. What's your solution? Open up society and let people overwhelm the hospitals? You can't have an open society, reduced spread, but hospital beds for all who get ill. 

[aintforever]

55 minutes ago, whelk said:

So just over 4% of all the deaths have been from healthy people. Not a stat they seem to want to highlight

Dos it make any difference were the person who died had an existing condition or not, there are millions in the high risk category and their deaths are just as tragic as those of healthy people.

Edited 26 December, 2020 by aintforever

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Then why have them if you can’t staff them?

This is a good question, the London one closed s while back and I think only ever had 50 people in it. It was never really used because if you wanted to send a patient there you had to send nurses with them.

They weren't needed in LD1 as all schedule operations were cancelled this freed up beds, equipment and staff and this extra capacity along with lock down was enough to cope.

I think they were built as a last resort in reaction to the scenes in Italy of inflatable wards in their car parks and probably to the Chinese container hospital. They were there to be used if the hospitals became overwhelmed and would have been staffed I believe by a mixture of thinning out hospital and community staff, students, returnees and volunteers.

I get the impression that there are less really bad cases this time, although I have no hard facts for this, but since August and throughout LD2/tier 3 and 4 the theatres in my hospital kept working and have been doing every Saturday as well for months. During LD1 these staff and ventilators were on covid wards.

We got a load of free beds, sinks and some expensive medical air equipment from the London Nightingale as all the stuff was farmed out to local hospitals.

[Fan The Flames]

45 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Dos it make any difference were the person who died had an existing condition or not, there are millions in the high risk category and their deaths are just as tragic as those of healthy people.

No, nor if you are over 60.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, egg said:

No idea. What's your solution? Open up society and let people overwhelm the hospitals? You can't have an open society, reduced spread, but hospital beds for all who get ill. 

There comes a point when we can’t necessarily expect a hospital bed if we need it. We need to know how successful the hospitals are about ‘curing’ the sufferers. We get given the figures for hospital admissions but not those for length of stay nor cure percentages.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

There comes a point when we can’t necessarily expect a hospital bed if we need it. We need to know how successful the hospitals are about ‘curing’ the sufferers. We get given the figures for hospital admissions but not those for length of stay nor cure percentages.

That may be the only option. For me, it seems a stark choice of trying to keep the spread down as best we can but at great financial cost, or opening things up and dealing with it the best we can. I really can't see any other option. They're both appalling, but it looks like one or the other. 

Hospitals don't cure this stuff. Most people recover at home. Some have complications that may need medical care on an outpatient basis. Others have to go to hospital, get out of danger, then go home and access the NHS as when needed. Some die. Stats for all of that will take forever, but for now, the government must choose between a hard and a hard place, and get pelted whatever they do. 

Edited 26 December, 2020 by egg

[Jonnyboy]

On 23/12/2020 at 15:29, buctootim said:

I'd rather David Mliliband had won. Ed didn't provide credible opposition and enabled the whole shambles to unfold.  It's no exaggeration to say thsat if he hadnt stood against his brother recent British history would be different.   

David Miliband was never leader and so is an irrelevance 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Dos it make any difference were the person who died had an existing condition or not, there are millions in the high risk category and their deaths are just as tragic as those of healthy people.

It doesn’t in terms of tragedy but does in terms of how we assess the risk. Authorities seem at pains to not release such statistics.

 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

No, nor if you are over 60.

The 4% is across all ages. Less than 2000 ‘healthy’ people of the 46000 deaths 

[View From The Top]

26 minutes ago, egg said:

That may be the only option. For me, it seems a stark choice of trying to keep the spread down as best we can but at great financial cost, or opening things up and dealing with it the best we can. I really can't see any other option. They're both appalling, but it looks like one or the other. 

Hospitals don't cure this stuff. Most people recover at home. Some have complications that may need medical care on an outpatient basis. Others have to go to hospital, get out of danger, then go home and access the NHS as when needed. Some die. Stats for all of that will take forever, but for now, the government must choose between a hard and a hard place, and get pelted whatever they do. 

Problem is, that haven't done either.

We've seem to have done everything half measure since the 1st lockdown and then even those measures seem to have been driven by the needs of the government to placate backers.

The whole "get back to the office" / "save the city centres" looked more the agenda of the Tufton St cabal than it did of the government and of course, not long afterwards, it was dropped. That seems pretty atypical of their actions to me and their communication has been woeful.

I just hope that as the vaccination rollout gains momentum that we start to regain some sort of normality.

As for hospitals and long COVID. Of the staff we've had contract it, and we've had a way bigger number than many places alas, we've had 1 fatality and quite a number hospitalised and 2 of my own team still really struggling despite being home since late October. One of whom has been back in twice now.

These were all under 60, way under 60 in some cases and no underlying health issues. 

 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, View From The Top said:

Problem is, that haven't done either.

We've seem to have done everything half measure since the 1st lockdown and then even those measures seem to have been driven by the needs of the government to placate backers.

The whole "get back to the office" / "save the city centres" looked more the agenda of the Tufton St cabal than it did of the government and of course, not long afterwards, it was dropped. That seems pretty atypical of their actions to me and their communication has been woeful.

I just hope that as the vaccination rollout gains momentum that we start to regain some sort of normality.

As for hospitals and long COVID. Of the staff we've had contract it, and we've had a way bigger number than many places alas, we've had 1 fatality and quite a number hospitalised and 2 of my own team still really struggling despite being home since late October. One of whom has been back in twice now.

These were all under 60, way under 60 in some cases and no underlying health issues. 

 

Thanks for that. The last 2 paragraphs are what people need to hear. There's such a huge focus on living or dying from this, not what some people have to live with, as well as a misconception that you'll only have issues if you're over 60 and/or have existing health issues. 

Yep, the vaccine roll out can't come soon enough. Until now I agree, the approach has been neither one thing or another, but that's probably about the best balance. Complete lockdown throughout would have been carnage MH wise, and financially. Complete opening up would have been complete carnage for the NHS. My main issue has been the high levels of indecision and delay. 

[Lighthouse]

I’m increasingly starting to think that having different regions in different tiers is just a stupid idea. The Euston photos showed, it just leads to people from areas of high infection flooding into areas of low infection. If London needs a lockdown, give Cornwall one too, so what? It’ll protect that area in the long term and insure the infected people in London stay there. Even if infection rates are low elsewhere, there’s no harm in them being pushed a bit lower by lockdowns.

[Raging Bull]

The problem is that we aren’t getting, and probably never will get the full facts from this. 
 

What are the recovery rates? What are the normal flu statistics for the past 12 months? Why aren’t mainstream media reporting that the french found covid in their sewage systems in October last year or in retests of what doctors in France thought was flu (even though they couldn’t put their fingers on exactly what it was), but when they retested, they found it was covid 19, at the end of December last year. 
 

Did it wait patiently until January/February until it was officially diagnosed before it hit the Uk? 
 

And that’s before the truly frightening figures of undiagnosed cancer running at 1700/day or the fact that 1 in 6 children are abused in their homes. 
 

That alone should make any sane person question locking schools down again...

 

The headline grabbing “long covid” is all well and good, and I’m certainly not making light of it, but the fact is that 99.7 ish % of us will recover perfectly from it, if we even know we’ve had in the first place. 
 

And let’s not forget that there are death certificates that have covid on them that 100% should not. I personally know of 2 people that died of a heart attack and liver failure, respectfully, that had covid as the cause of death. 
 

Anyway, I have no doubt that I’ll get branded as a conspiracy theorist, because I don’t believe a lot of what the media are constantly tell us, but hay Ho, I don’t really care. 
 

Lockdowns are a massive mistake, not just on the economy. The vulnerable should be protected, but that’s probably it. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, egg said:

That may be the only option. For me, it seems a stark choice of trying to keep the spread down as best we can but at great financial cost, or opening things up and dealing with it the best we can. I really can't see any other option. They're both appalling, but it looks like one or the other. 

Hospitals don't cure this stuff. Most people recover at home. Some have complications that may need medical care on an outpatient basis. Others have to go to hospital, get out of danger, then go home and access the NHS as when needed. Some die. Stats for all of that will take forever, but for now, the government must choose between a hard and a hard place, and get pelted whatever they do. 

Yes, it’s a difficult decision and I don’t envy them for it. It’s just that I’m not convinced that these lockdowns are as effective as they think they are.

What we need are warm weather and widespread vaccination.

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

The 4% is across all ages. Less than 2000 ‘healthy’ people of the 46000 deaths 

Healthy not healthy isn't a distinction in my mind, a healthy person or diabetic or cancer patient dying of covid is equally as valid. Yes some cases are less of a tragedy than others but I wouldn't want to make that call.

Looking at things at a macro level is an interesting intellectual exercise but things are experienced at the micro level and there are nearly 70000 individual cases that has affected families.

I am torn on whether lockdown is the right action to take, but in the balance I think it probably is. Also I can't see a Tory government doing it if it wasn't absolutely necessary.

[View From The Top]

9 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

 

That alone should make any sane person question locking schools down again...

 

 

Do you know much about secondary schools and tertiary?

What's fucking with the students is threefold in most respects.

1) They can be in bubbles all day with their friends but can't walk home with them nor see them out of school. It's "safe" for them to be with 30 odd kids all day in classrooms, with 150 in a year bubble, with no masks but they can't see friends or family. That doesn't make sense to them and it scares them. Why is one scenario safe and the other isn't?

2) Uncertainty. Kids like rules and structure and the constant in/out of bubbles and mixed messages causes confusion and fear.

3) Exams. Will they/won't they. Far too many feel they've missed so much and can't catch up. They're right too. They see exams in Wales and Scotland cancelled and question as to when or if theirs been cancelled. So many have so much riding on the months ahead and they're scared after seeing this summers mammoth fuck up.

This is all from the perspective of a northern education manager in a major hotspot.

There are no easy answers to any of this, god knows we've been trying since March to find them.

[whelk]

6 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m increasingly starting to think that having different regions in different tiers is just a stupid idea. The Euston photos showed, it just leads to people from areas of high infection flooding into areas of low infection. If London needs a lockdown, give Cornwall one too, so what? It’ll protect that area in the long term and insure the infected people in London stay there. Even if infection rates are low elsewhere, there’s no harm in them being pushed a bit lower by lockdowns.

Euston exodus was at Christmas when people traditionally visit family and they were going earl - still the media love to feed a picture where everyone can get outraged. Remember Bournemouth beach?. Clearly The vast majority have no option to migrate temporarily to a lower tier.

Track and Trace seems to be useless in indicating where people are getting infected and I genuinely have no idea what is causing the spread when stricter rules are in place although suspect the failure of any ‘circuit break’ was due to schools staying open not people queuing at Pret at Euston Station.

[egg]

8 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

And that’s before the truly frightening figures of undiagnosed cancer running at 1700/day or the fact that 1 in 6 children are abused in their homes. 

That alone should make any sane person question locking schools down again...

The headline grabbing “long covid” is all well and good, and I’m certainly not making light of it, but the fact is that 99.7 ish % of us will recover perfectly from it, if we even know we’ve had in the first place. 

And let’s not forget that there are death certificates that have covid on them that 100% should not. I personally know of 2 people that died of a heart attack and liver failure, respectfully, that had covid as the cause of death. 

Anyway, I have no doubt that I’ll get branded as a conspiracy theorist, because I don’t believe a lot of what the media are constantly tell us, but hay Ho, I don’t really care. 

Lockdowns are a massive mistake, not just on the economy. The vulnerable should be protected, but that’s probably it. 

Yep, lockdowns are doing nothing positive. But you make the contradiction that many do - you criticise lockdowns but highlight how the NHS isn't able to do its job.

If you are suggesting that we fully open society / economy (bar protecting the vulnerable) and let the virus do its worst, that'll put massive pressure on the NHS and mean that it won't be able to treat all the Covid sufferers needing treatment, let alone anyone else. 

Are you asking for an open society or an NHS better placed to pick up and deal with new cancer cases? You can't have it both ways. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, egg said:

Yep, lockdowns are doing nothing positive. But you make the contradiction that many do - you criticise lockdowns but highlight how the NHS isn't able to do its job.

 

The NHS isn’t able to do its job BECAUSE of the lockdown. You can’t get a Doctors appointment for love or money, a guy who works for me has had 2 operations cancelled as a direct result of lockdown, and I’m sure there’s countless others in the same boat. 
 

Harsh as it sounds there are  2 sides to the ledger. One side contains the people saved (mainly older folk) from lockdown & the other side contains people who die as a result of lockdown. People with mental health issues as a result of losing their job, or poverty. People whose cancer was diagnosed later than it normally would be, people who are scared to visit A&E and as a result die of heart attack or stroke. A midwife told me that women turning  up for scans worried the baby has stopped moving is down 90% since lockdown, as they’re too scared of visiting hospital and catching Covid. Most are fine, but some saved their unborn babies life by acting quickly. Therefore it stands to reason that fear of checking out your baby will cause some deaths. This is horrible stuff, but stuff used to make health decisions year in year out. Lockdown may save people from dying of Covid, but it will cause preventable deaths elsewhere. 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The NHS isn’t able to do its job BECAUSE of the lockdown. You can’t get a Doctors appointment for love or money, a guy who works for me has had 2 operations cancelled as a direct result of lockdown, and I’m sure there’s countless others in the same boat. 
 

Harsh as it sounds there are  2 sides to the ledger. One side contains the people saved (mainly older folk) from lockdown & the other side contains people who die as a result of lockdown. People with mental health issues as a result of losing their job, or poverty. People whose cancer was diagnosed later than it normally would be, people who are scared to visit A&E and as a result die of heart attack or stroke. A midwife told me that women turning  up for scans worried the baby has stopped moving is down 90% since lockdown, as they’re too scared of visiting hospital and catching Covid. Most are fine, but some saved their unborn babies life by acting quickly. Therefore it stands to reason that fear of checking out your baby will cause some deaths. This is horrible stuff, but stuff used to make health decisions year in year out. Lockdown may save people from dying of Covid, but it will cause preventable deaths elsewhere. 

Duck, you miss the point. The NHS can't cope - see the link below. Opening society as we would all like, will spread the virus and put further strain on the NHS. It's a simple concept that you can't open society without putting further strain on a struggling NHS.

If it's not a stark choice between doing what we have been, or opening up society in the knowledge that'll mean the NHS struggles more than it currently is, what is the way forward before we're all vaccinated and/or have herd immunity? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55454280

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The NHS isn’t able to do its job BECAUSE of the lockdown. You can’t get a Doctors appointment for love or money, a guy who works for me has had 2 operations cancelled as a direct result of lockdown, and I’m sure there’s countless others in the same boat. 
 

Harsh as it sounds there are  2 sides to the ledger. One side contains the people saved (mainly older folk) from lockdown & the other side contains people who die as a result of lockdown. People with mental health issues as a result of losing their job, or poverty. People whose cancer was diagnosed later than it normally would be, people who are scared to visit A&E and as a result die of heart attack or stroke. A midwife told me that women turning  up for scans worried the baby has stopped moving is down 90% since lockdown, as they’re too scared of visiting hospital and catching Covid. Most are fine, but some saved their unborn babies life by acting quickly. Therefore it stands to reason that fear of checking out your baby will cause some deaths. This is horrible stuff, but stuff used to make health decisions year in year out. Lockdown may save people from dying of Covid, but it will cause preventable deaths elsewhere. 

Allowing Covid to run riot would have a much worse impact on the NHS.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Allowing Covid to run riot would have a much worse impact on the NHS.

Quite. People want their cake and eat it - an open society but an NHS capable of servicing that open society when thousands more need medical treatment. I'm baffled that people can't comprehend something so simple. 

[View From The Top]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Allowing Covid to run riot would have a much worse impact on the NHS.

I'm not sure why people who purport to be bright can't understand that.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Allowing Covid to run riot would have a much worse impact on the NHS.

I’ve not seen anyone advocating letting it run wild, only lockdown enthusiasts claiming it’s what other people  want. It’s not just lockdown or nothing, there’s lots of measures in between. 

[Verbal]

46 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ve not seen anyone advocating letting it run wild, only lockdown enthusiasts claiming it’s what other people  want. It’s not just lockdown or nothing, there’s lots of measures in between. 

It sounds like we've already allowed the disease to run wild.  The US today hit the grim milestone of having one in a thousand of its citizens die from coronavirus.  Only four countries in the world have a worse record: Peru, Spain, Italy...and the UK.  Somehow the Johnson cabal have managed to kill the most people for the most damage to the economy. 

[Lighthouse]

48 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ve not seen anyone advocating letting it run wild, only lockdown enthusiasts claiming it’s what other people  want. It’s not just lockdown or nothing, there’s lots of measures in between. 

So what ‘other measure’ would lead to lower rates of infection, without lockdown, that we aren’t doing already?

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, Verbal said:

It sounds like we've already allowed the disease to run wild.  The US today hit the grim milestone of having one in a thousand of its citizens die from coronavirus.  Only four countries in the world have a worse record: Peru, Spain, Italy...and the UK.  Somehow the Johnson cabal have managed to kill the most people for the most damage to the economy. 

No, they’ve managed to record the most deaths, there’s a big difference.

[Verbal]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No, they’ve managed to record the most deaths, there’s a big difference.

Wrong.  It's not a passive thing of 'recording'.  There are reasons why our numbers are so bad.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ve not seen anyone advocating letting it run wild, only lockdown enthusiasts claiming it’s what other people  want. It’s not just lockdown or nothing, there’s lots of measures in between. 

Measures in between is exactly what we have done and are doing now, even our first lockdown was not as severe as many countries.

I can’t stand Bozo and his bunch of cronies but when it comes to lockdowns he has little choice. The idea that you can shield the vulnerable and just crack on as normal is just fantasy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

27 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So what ‘other measure’ would lead to lower rates of infection, without lockdown, that we aren’t doing already?

Do you accept that lockdown will cause more  unemployment & poverty. Do you accept that it will affect some people’s mental health & do you accept that there will be poorer health outcomes in relation to other diseases. I don’t normally quote the Guardian, but this is what they wrote; 

“The number of people entering treatment for cancer has dropped significantly, meaning many patients who would have ordinarily been tested for cancer were not seen. In April 2019 almost 200,000 people were referred to a consultant for suspected cancer by their GPs. This April that figure fell to just 79,573”. 
 

So the question shouldn’t be “what other measures will lead to lower infections, without lockdown”. But is the lockdown proportionate, in terms of years saved & cost to the economy.