Coronavirus outbreak

[lane]

You didn't have a lock-down, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Not really a relevant response, albeit strictly speaking true. Whatever you wish to call it, we do not do it for the flu which i the relevant thing. Clearly without deaths would be many times higher than the flu.

 

[Rocky]

Lockdown nonsense. FFS. How do you think that the infection curve and R rate was reversed during lockdown? The virus elves? In "the real world" when there is no vaccine or effective treatment, isolating the virus is the only way to stop it or slow it. Unless you are happy with most of the population getting it and significant numbers of people dying or having long-term after effects.



I'll tell you what would make them more sick than lockdown - COVID19. Humans have an appalling ability at being able to assess risk. My next-door neighbour got COVID early during the lockdown. He is late 30's and fit. He was very ill for a month and is still in recovery phase. My uncle-in-law got COVID more recently. He wasn't so lucky. He spent 2 weeks in ICU on a ventilator and now is on dialysis because it caused his kidneys to pack up. He is in his 70's but had no underlying health conditions. Those ignoring all the rules - like the anti-vaxxers - are using the compliance of others to keep themselves safe.

Spot on. I agree 100%.

I’ve been reading about the numbers of young people in the US who have died of Covid. This is not just a disease of the ill or elderly.

I have now had two friends die of Covid. I find it odd that some people try and trivialise it. Dying, alone, in a hospital ward of interstitial pneumonia is about one of the worse deaths I can think of.

 

[classic33]

Lockdown compliance was never going to hold up for an extended time. The trouble is that people like you who believe in all this lockdown nonsense expect everybody else to also believe in it and comply with it too - but in the real world it ain't gonna happen as you are now starting to realise.
A good proportion of the population are heartily sick of the lockdown, really don't give a toss about the virus, and are fully intent on going back to working and socialising as normal. You won't agree with that stance, but you're going to have to deal with it, because that's the reality of the situation.
I've noticed a significant reduction in mask wearing in public over the last week or two. The last time I walked through a busy high street a couple of days ago I did a mask count, and only about 1 in 8 shoppers were wearing them. A month or two ago it was about 1 in 5. Even on buses, where masks are supposedly mandated, at least a quarter of passengers aren't wearing them, and a lot more are deliberately mis-wearing them so they are only really there for show.

I can't wait for this to be over, things getting back to "normal"*. Then maybe the routine hospital appointments can start up again. Specialists on five different hospitals, all requiring public transport to get to. I might be able to "pick up, where I left off" on three conditions that could finish me off quicker than this current virus. They could also do it a hell of a lot slower. So why should I be bothered by this virus!

Maybe even consider getting an appointment at the doctors. But I'm aware that until this is sorted, those things will never happen. As I've already found out, the masks that most seem to be wearing are a hazard(I ended up chewing one. They don't taste nice, what's in them?) for myself. The metal strips in some damage the inside of the mouth.

With regards their use on public transport, employees cannot make a person wear one. That's the job of the police. Frontline transport staff are getting it from both sides. They've to enforce the rules whilst keeping the services running and passengers happy.

The new normal may not be one you're willing to accept, but you'll have to get used to it. I accepted, and have when able kept to the rules in place. Despite some being to my detriment. You may find you don't like the new normal, what will you do then?

You think it's been bad here, take a look at the rules in some of the countries on our borders.


*Definition required.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Clearly without deaths would be many times higher than the flu.

All the lockdown will achieve is to change the cause of death over the next couple of years. OK, less people will die from the virus, but a whole load of others will die as a result of not getting medical attention for other dangerous conditions because they have been discouraged from visiting the doctor and non-coronavirus related medicine has essentially been put on hold to a large extent. What would you rather die of; the virus, cancer, diabetes, or heart disease? Non-coronavirus mortality will strike back with a vengeance in the months and years to come, since so much attention has been focused on the virus to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. All the other dangerous illnesses haven't declared a truce whilst the virus is running, they are all still there too.

 

[Rocky]

All the lockdown will achieve is to change the cause of death over the next couple of years. OK, less people will die from the virus, but a whole load of others will die as a result of not getting medical attention for other dangerous conditions because they have been discouraged from visiting the doctor and non-coronavirus related medicine has essentially been put on hold to a large extent. What would you rather die of; the virus, cancer, diabetes, or heart disease? Non-coronavirus mortality will strike back with a vengeance in the months and years to come, since so much attention has been focused on the virus to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. All the other dangerous illnesses haven't declared a truce whilst the virus is running, they are all still there too.

Vaccine......

BTW have you seen how the hospitals have been over run in the southern US? You can't ignore it as a virus.

 

[Tanis8472]

All the lockdown will achieve is to change the cause of death over the next couple of years. OK, less people will die from the virus, but a whole load of others will die as a result of not getting medical attention for other dangerous conditions because they have been discouraged from visiting the doctor and non-coronavirus related medicine has essentially been put on hold to a large extent. What would you rather die of; the virus, cancer, diabetes, or heart disease? Non-coronavirus mortality will strike back with a vengeance in the months and years to come, since so much attention has been focused on the virus to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. All the other dangerous illnesses haven't declared a truce whilst the virus is running, they are all still there too.

They're not farking highly contagious

 

[Rocky]

They're not farking highly contagious

I agree 100%.

Plus it's pretty insulting to our front line staff to suggest that they are ignoring all other health conditions throughout this pandemic. It's simply not true. Oncology services are still running. A&E is still running. Diabetes services are still running. General practice is still running. The service delivery is a little different but patients are still being seen.

 

[qigong chimp]

Why are you even surprised at this? Try bossing people around like naughty kids From some people asked to act in the common interest and you'll get that sort of reaction.

I think the expression is "Fixed that for you."

 

[RoadRider400]

Government is hell bent on opening the economy at all cost leaving what little science they did bother to read

I think you need to give some appreciation that the economy is important. Its now summer and the virus transmission should be controllable with some measures. If you keep tanking the economy the government will have to keep printing money. So follows hyperinflation and we are all screwed. I think the high risk need to keep shielding and those people need some financial help from the government. The rest of us need to be back working in offices if so needed with a national whistleblowing scheme where employees can report employers for not incorporating distancing and such safety measures.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Vaccine......

That could be a full year away from being an effective solution. What do you want to do until then, put the whole world into suspended animation for a year whilst the vaccine researchers get their act together? Totally unrealistic policy, which has never been attempted in previous epidemics. Trying to keep known infected people away from everyone else until they recover to slow the rate of spread is sensible, bringing everything to a complete standstill for a long period just in case some of those not yet infected might get it is just not a viable option.

 

[Rocky]

That could be a full year away from being an effective solution. What do you want to do until then, put the whole world into suspended animation for a year whilst the vaccine researchers get their act together? Totally unrealistic policy, which has never been attempted in previous epidemics. Trying to keep known infected people away from everyone else until they recover to slow the rate of spread is sensible, bringing everything to a complete standstill for a long period just in case some of those not yet infected might get it is just not a viable option.

You simply don't understand how this pandemic works. If you ignore it or end lockdown too early you get what's happening in the states. People will die unnecessarily (they are in the US). It won't save the economy - ill people can't work, hospitals will close (remember Hillingdon Hospital A&E??), tourism will crash (have you seen how few places that will accept US citizens without quarantine?).

You set up a false dichotomy. It's not lockdown vs keeping the economy afloat.....you cannot ignore the virus. It's there and has to be dealt with or else it'll take the economy down and kill huge numbers unnecessarily.

 

[tom73]

I agree 100%.

Plus it's pretty insulting to our front line staff to suggest that they are ignoring all other health conditions throughout this pandemic. It's simply not true. Oncology services are still running. A&E is still running. Diabetes services are still running. General practice is still running. The service delivery is a little different but patients are still being seen.

Spot on it is still all going off be it in different ways and in settings away from hospitals some things may take longer but you still get seen.
Only real area effected has been elective surgery so don't expect a new hip anytime soon unless you're a trama case that is.
To believe ever part of the hospital was given over to covid is not something that stacks up after all babies still got born though all this.
The drop of in A and E has a lot to do with people who truncates up with any and every thing who really should never get though door thinking twice about it.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

It won't save the economy - ill people can't work, hospitals will close (remember Hillingdon Hospital A&E??), tourism will crash (have you seen how few places that will accept US citizens without quarantine?).

You set up a false dichotomy. It's not lockdown vs keeping the economy afloat.....you cannot ignore the virus. It's there and has to be dealt with or else it'll take the economy down and kill huge numbers unnecessarily.

Depending on what source you go by, anything up to 70% of those catching the coronavirus do not even have any symptoms. Therefore those people are not actually ill, and are not prevented from functioning normally whilst infected. Of the remaining percentage who do get symptoms, a high proportion of those experience nothing worse than a heavy cold. That might put them out of action for a week. The number of people who get really ill, are hospitalised, or even die from the virus is only a tiny minority of the total, but these are the stats that the media obsesses about. In the developed world that has advanced medical facilities, the real mortality rate is almost certainly under half a percent of the true infected numbers, if you include those not having symptoms. To suggest that the virus will gave a devastating effect on large parts of the population is simply scaremongering from a totally risk-averse standpoint. The virus can be nasty and it can be fatal, but in the majority of cases it is neither of those things.

 

[Rocky]

Depending on what source you go by, anything up to 70% of those catching the coronavirus do not even have any symptoms. Therefore those people are not actually ill, and are not prevented from functioning normally whilst infected. Of the remaining percentage who do get symptoms, a high proportion of those experience nothing worse than a heavy cold. That might put them out of action for a week. The number of people who get really ill, are hospitalised, or even die from the virus is only a tiny minority of the total, but these are the stats that the media obsesses about. In the developed world that has advanced medical facilities, the real mortality rate is almost certainly under half a percent of the true infected numbers, if you include those not having symptoms. To suggest that the virus will gave a devastating effect on large parts of the population is simply scaremongering from a totally risk-averse standpoint. The virus can be nasty and it can be fatal, but in the majority of cases it is neither of those things.

I suggest you look at what is happening in the southern US. It’s real. It’s not project fear. It may not fit with your narrative but hey ho.

 

[Andy in Germany]

a whole load of others will die as a result of not getting medical attention for other dangerous conditions because they have been discouraged from visiting the doctor and non-coronavirus related medicine has essentially been put on hold to a large extent.

Now why would that be, do we think, especially as a few years back the UK was supposed to be the best prepared country for a pandemic? Could it perchance be less because of a pandemic that had been predicted on several occasions and more to do with ten years of starving the UK Health Service of funds while shovelling large amounts of cash off to private companies who turned out to be unable to fulfil their obligations?