Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? " The cure being lockdown? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong" Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? " No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong" Why is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months." ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. " Just look at excess deaths since COVID started , it currently stands at over 60,000 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . " ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? " Assuming every government in the world lacks your wisdom you could be correct. Or, and I know it's implausible, but you could be wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown." So every country in the world is exactly the same as Sweden ? And the death rate using your figures is actually 10 % unless you can prove that the whole country has had the virus | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. Just look at excess deaths since COVID started , it currently stands at over 60,000" ———— These numbers are wrong ... why? Because other death causes have been submitted into that number - this will be clearly visible in statistics next year when it comes out that death comparison was wrong as all other causes with decrease instead of increasing- you have to get out of U.K. and start looking at numbers in countries that have extensively tested people and are submitting true numbers - the exercise from Diamond Princess gives a very good indication of % rate of deaths and infections that are true and all governments have already concluded that their initial estimates were fatally wrong just not U.K. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. Just look at excess deaths since COVID started , it currently stands at over 60,000 ———— These numbers are wrong ... why? Because other death causes have been submitted into that number - this will be clearly visible in statistics next year when it comes out that death comparison was wrong as all other causes with decrease instead of increasing- you have to get out of U.K. and start looking at numbers in countries that have extensively tested people and are submitting true numbers - the exercise from Diamond Princess gives a very good indication of % rate of deaths and infections that are true and all governments have already concluded that their initial estimates were fatally wrong just not U.K." So all the figures, scientists, governments around the world are wrong and you are right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. Just look at excess deaths since COVID started , it currently stands at over 60,000 ———— These numbers are wrong ... why? Because other death causes have been submitted into that number - this will be clearly visible in statistics next year when it comes out that death comparison was wrong as all other causes with decrease instead of increasing- you have to get out of U.K. and start looking at numbers in countries that have extensively tested people and are submitting true numbers - the exercise from Diamond Princess gives a very good indication of % rate of deaths and infections that are true and all governments have already concluded that their initial estimates were fatally wrong just not U.K." It’s 60,000 deaths above the yearly average deaths. Seeing as though we had one of the mildest flu seasons for a long time, what else if not covid 19 has caused such a influx in deaths above the average??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. So every country in the world is exactly the same as Sweden ? And the death rate using your figures is actually 10 % unless you can prove that the whole country has had the virus " ———— No, the point is you have to look at bigger picture - in Sweden specifically 10 million people were exposed to the virus that’s a fact and 4000 people died .... on diamond princess 18% got infected and 0.2% died .... most countries have issued new true statistics which clearly state that the initial predictions of 70% of people would be infected are wrong - it’s between 15 and 19% and death rate well below 1% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown." You have to realise that unlike the vast majority in the UK, Sweden has an intelligent population that doesn't actually need rules to be imposed by their government. They make their own risk assessments and avoid getting infected Common sense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. So every country in the world is exactly the same as Sweden ? And the death rate using your figures is actually 10 % unless you can prove that the whole country has had the virus ———— No, the point is you have to look at bigger picture - in Sweden specifically 10 million people were exposed to the virus that’s a fact and 4000 people died .... on diamond princess 18% got infected and 0.2% died .... most countries have issued new true statistics which clearly state that the initial predictions of 70% of people would be infected are wrong - it’s between 15 and 19% and death rate well below 1%" You can’t compare Sweden with other countries, it really is that simple. Would you like me to show you the figures for population density to prove my point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. You have to realise that unlike the vast majority in the UK, Sweden has an intelligent population that doesn't actually need rules to be imposed by their government. They make their own risk assessments and avoid getting infected Common sense " 
This | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. Just look at excess deaths since COVID started , it currently stands at over 60,000 ———— These numbers are wrong ... why? Because other death causes have been submitted into that number - this will be clearly visible in statistics next year when it comes out that death comparison was wrong as all other causes with decrease instead of increasing- you have to get out of U.K. and start looking at numbers in countries that have extensively tested people and are submitting true numbers - the exercise from Diamond Princess gives a very good indication of % rate of deaths and infections that are true and all governments have already concluded that their initial estimates were fatally wrong just not U.K. It’s 60,000 deaths above the yearly average deaths. Seeing as though we had one of the mildest flu seasons for a long time, what else if not covid 19 has caused such a influx in deaths above the average???" Fair to mention that while those deaths are during this pandemic it doesn't mean it was virus related. Stress, suicide and other factors are being added into the death rate. There have been many doctors speaking out about how they are told to write of deaths as by covid regardless of the reason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. Just look at excess deaths since COVID started , it currently stands at over 60,000 ———— These numbers are wrong ... why? Because other death causes have been submitted into that number - this will be clearly visible in statistics next year when it comes out that death comparison was wrong as all other causes with decrease instead of increasing- you have to get out of U.K. and start looking at numbers in countries that have extensively tested people and are submitting true numbers - the exercise from Diamond Princess gives a very good indication of % rate of deaths and infections that are true and all governments have already concluded that their initial estimates were fatally wrong just not U.K. It’s 60,000 deaths above the yearly average deaths. Seeing as though we had one of the mildest flu seasons for a long time, what else if not covid 19 has caused such a influx in deaths above the average??? Fair to mention that while those deaths are during this pandemic it doesn't mean it was virus related. Stress, suicide and other factors are being added into the death rate. There have been many doctors speaking out about how they are told to write of deaths as by covid regardless of the reason." So your dismissing the 60,000 figure? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. So every country in the world is exactly the same as Sweden ? And the death rate using your figures is actually 10 % unless you can prove that the whole country has had the virus ———— No, the point is you have to look at bigger picture - in Sweden specifically 10 million people were exposed to the virus that’s a fact and 4000 people died .... on diamond princess 18% got infected and 0.2% died .... most countries have issued new true statistics which clearly state that the initial predictions of 70% of people would be infected are wrong - it’s between 15 and 19% and death rate well below 1% You can’t compare Sweden with other countries, it really is that simple. Would you like me to show you the figures for population density to prove my point " ——- Look at ‘population density’ on diamond princess - since the outbreak all major scientific institutes rely on numbers from cruise ship studies because they give exactly the right and correct true life scenarios and based on them they are able to predict true infection rates without lockdowns per country. Secondly if Vast majority of deaths are relating to certain age group then it is clear that lockdown would make sense in the age group that is most affected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"lockdown and everything that surrounds the Covid crisis oh and by the way the 130.000 comparison to 50.000 Covid deaths is not true because the death rate re covid in the U.K. is fatally wrong Yes it is fatally wrong there are over 60,000 deaths which have occurred in only 5 months. ———- It is fatally wrong because in that number are people who have died of other reasons not Covid but which had similar symptoms- I bet statistics for influenza deaths will be much lower this year. Just look at excess deaths since COVID started , it currently stands at over 60,000 ———— These numbers are wrong ... why? Because other death causes have been submitted into that number - this will be clearly visible in statistics next year when it comes out that death comparison was wrong as all other causes with decrease instead of increasing- you have to get out of U.K. and start looking at numbers in countries that have extensively tested people and are submitting true numbers - the exercise from Diamond Princess gives a very good indication of % rate of deaths and infections that are true and all governments have already concluded that their initial estimates were fatally wrong just not U.K. It’s 60,000 deaths above the yearly average deaths. Seeing as though we had one of the mildest flu seasons for a long time, what else if not covid 19 has caused such a influx in deaths above the average??? Fair to mention that while those deaths are during this pandemic it doesn't mean it was virus related. Stress, suicide and other factors are being added into the death rate. There have been many doctors speaking out about how they are told to write of deaths as by covid regardless of the reason." —— Sadly this is true and the 50.000 or now 60.000 deaths are not tested Covid cases ... sadly U.K. numbers are not reflecting true number of deaths directly from Covid | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. So every country in the world is exactly the same as Sweden ? And the death rate using your figures is actually 10 % unless you can prove that the whole country has had the virus ———— No, the point is you have to look at bigger picture - in Sweden specifically 10 million people were exposed to the virus that’s a fact and 4000 people died .... on diamond princess 18% got infected and 0.2% died .... most countries have issued new true statistics which clearly state that the initial predictions of 70% of people would be infected are wrong - it’s between 15 and 19% and death rate well below 1% You can’t compare Sweden with other countries, it really is that simple. Would you like me to show you the figures for population density to prove my point ——- Look at ‘population density’ on diamond princess - since the outbreak all major scientific institutes rely on numbers from cruise ship studies because they give exactly the right and correct true life scenarios and based on them they are able to predict true infection rates without lockdowns per country. Secondly if Vast majority of deaths are relating to certain age group then it is clear that lockdown would make sense in the age group that is most affected." Do you want me to give you the population density figures for Sweden when compared to the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. So every country in the world is exactly the same as Sweden ? And the death rate using your figures is actually 10 % unless you can prove that the whole country has had the virus ———— No, the point is you have to look at bigger picture - in Sweden specifically 10 million people were exposed to the virus that’s a fact and 4000 people died .... on diamond princess 18% got infected and 0.2% died .... most countries have issued new true statistics which clearly state that the initial predictions of 70% of people would be infected are wrong - it’s between 15 and 19% and death rate well below 1% You can’t compare Sweden with other countries, it really is that simple. Would you like me to show you the figures for population density to prove my point ——- Look at ‘population density’ on diamond princess - since the outbreak all major scientific institutes rely on numbers from cruise ship studies because they give exactly the right and correct true life scenarios and based on them they are able to predict true infection rates without lockdowns per country. Secondly if Vast majority of deaths are relating to certain age group then it is clear that lockdown would make sense in the age group that is most affected. Do you want me to give you the population density figures for Sweden when compared to the UK? " ——- I’ve given you more examples now not only Sweden ..... I want to see your answer to that one .... although we can start digging deeper if you would like and compare two major cities - one from Sweden one from U.K. - and you will see the same results | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . ——- Based on what information? According to now very good statistics from around the world the death rate is at 0.0.... %, Sweden has a population of 10 million people, 40.000 confirmed cases and ca 4000 deaths, 0.04 % death rate with no lockdown. So every country in the world is exactly the same as Sweden ? And the death rate using your figures is actually 10 % unless you can prove that the whole country has had the virus ———— No, the point is you have to look at bigger picture - in Sweden specifically 10 million people were exposed to the virus that’s a fact and 4000 people died .... on diamond princess 18% got infected and 0.2% died .... most countries have issued new true statistics which clearly state that the initial predictions of 70% of people would be infected are wrong - it’s between 15 and 19% and death rate well below 1% You can’t compare Sweden with other countries, it really is that simple. Would you like me to show you the figures for population density to prove my point ——- Look at ‘population density’ on diamond princess - since the outbreak all major scientific institutes rely on numbers from cruise ship studies because they give exactly the right and correct true life scenarios and based on them they are able to predict true infection rates without lockdowns per country. Secondly if Vast majority of deaths are relating to certain age group then it is clear that lockdown would make sense in the age group that is most affected. Do you want me to give you the population density figures for Sweden when compared to the UK? ——- I’ve given you more examples now not only Sweden ..... I want to see your answer to that one .... although we can start digging deeper if you would like and compare two major cities - one from Sweden one from U.K. - and you will see the same results " Sure, give me the figures for Stockholm compared to London . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a few interesting studies done about the impact of recession and unemployment on mortality rates. A 1% increase in unemployment was attributed to the death of 40,000 americans, through suicide, lack of funding to health and social services etc.. similar was viewed in the uk and Brazil as well as other countries. Obviously the numbers vary between countries but the economic impact had a very negative effect. The big difference was this tended to effect the younger in the population disproportionately, due to loss of jobs etc. Given the high unemployment we're likely to see following this and the recession it's definitely a possibility that the attributed deaths could easily out number the response to the virus. At the impact is over years. Was the lockdown right? In our opinion yes, we didn't know exactly what we were dealing with. However given the amount of data we have now I'd say we should be pushing forward with getting the economy back up and running as soon as possible. The risks for certain age groups are very tolerable. Mathematically your risks of contracting the disease and being hospitalised by it under 40 are somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. (that wasn't made up either, a leading cambridge mathematician did the sums based on all current data) For us it's time to push forward but we respect peoples concerns, this is simply our views." ———— That’s exactly my point - we’ve had good numbers from other countries to make the right decisions - current lockdown and restrictions are unnecessary apart from certain age group. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? " Probably , but there wasn’t tine to think it through and take the risk that it would only only be a big risk to very old and sick people. In hindsight the response would likely be very different | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. " Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died." No one said its mathematically impossible.. of course people under 40 have been hospitalised and died.. there's 7.6 billion people on the planet. The comparison is designed to allow some understandable comparison. If he chose he could have picked any number of comparisons that have occurred to suit your ability to comprehend the law of odds. It's using two high odds examples and combining them to give some form of visual understanding. It makes it easier than saying 1/30,300,420 etc..(that's not the actual number just an example) And there's nothing disrespectful about it, no one is saying their deaths are funny.. your interpretation of the message is for you, please don't project your feelings onto something which has no emotional context, by which I mean facts and figures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died." Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . " Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution." Your missing the points, the lockdown main aim was to slow the spread and protect the NHS and key workers yet approximately 300 people still died of COVID . I dread to think what the figures would have been without these restrictions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a few interesting studies done about the impact of recession and unemployment on mortality rates. A 1% increase in unemployment was attributed to the death of 40,000 americans, through suicide, lack of funding to health and social services etc.. similar was viewed in the uk and Brazil as well as other countries. Obviously the numbers vary between countries but the economic impact had a very negative effect. The big difference was this tended to effect the younger in the population disproportionately, due to loss of jobs etc. Given the high unemployment we're likely to see following this and the recession it's definitely a possibility that the attributed deaths could easily out number the response to the virus. At the impact is over years. Was the lockdown right? In our opinion yes, we didn't know exactly what we were dealing with. However given the amount of data we have now I'd say we should be pushing forward with getting the economy back up and running as soon as possible. The risks for certain age groups are very tolerable. Mathematically your risks of contracting the disease and being hospitalised by it under 40 are somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. (that wasn't made up either, a leading cambridge mathematician did the sums based on all current data) For us it's time to push forward but we respect peoples concerns, this is simply our views." Roughly 1% of the deaths have been in age group of 18-44 which is roughly 600 deaths. So saying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution. Your missing the points, the lockdown main aim was to slow the spread and protect the NHS and key workers yet approximately 300 people still died of COVID . I dread to think what the figures would have been without these restrictions." I think you need to re read the original post and the response we gave. And what if is a variable.. no one can reliably say what if.. What if we didn't work on a vaccine, what if we actually did a lockdown like other countries instead of the "you can't have a massive house party" but everything else is fine or people will complain lockdown. Based on all the current data and someone else's figures who are much smarter than us, that is what our reply was made on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . " ———— I think we are getting lost in what I was trying to put forward - the main point of this discussion really is that more people will die and will be chronically ill from the consequences of what I call a long term lockdown than direct coronavirus deaths and those numbers are out there already based on global crisis from 2008 death rates and chronic illnesses vs direct death from covid. Lockdown was not a mistake but now that enough information is out there it should be managed accordingly and it’s not ... we are moving from a hole that could be repaired into a hole that will have to be repaired by two generations and there is no reason for it in help of maths and scientific help. The deaths are one thing and we should respect them but the well-being and financial situation of millions of people is another thing because that directly equates to health being physical or mental of these people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It depends, in some cases you can actually get worse with vaccines so it is not all good with it." Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying vaccines make everyone worse if they have had them or are you saying that a minuscule amount of the population will have side effects whereas everyone else will be immune? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . ———— I think we are getting lost in what I was trying to put forward - the main point of this discussion really is that more people will die and will be chronically ill from the consequences of what I call a long term lockdown than direct coronavirus deaths and those numbers are out there already based on global crisis from 2008 death rates and chronic illnesses vs direct death from covid. Lockdown was not a mistake but now that enough information is out there it should be managed accordingly and it’s not ... we are moving from a hole that could be repaired into a hole that will have to be repaired by two generations and there is no reason for it in help of maths and scientific help. The deaths are one thing and we should respect them but the well-being and financial situation of millions of people is another thing because that directly equates to health being physical or mental of these people. " I agree that a ‘long term’ lockdown isn’t viable but you compared the UK to Sweden who didn’t have an enforced lockdown at all. In my opinion the financial implications of the current lockdown would have been worse if we had had no restrictions and let the virus killing 100s of thousands of people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a few interesting studies done about the impact of recession and unemployment on mortality rates. A 1% increase in unemployment was attributed to the death of 40,000 americans, through suicide, lack of funding to health and social services etc.. similar was viewed in the uk and Brazil as well as other countries. Obviously the numbers vary between countries but the economic impact had a very negative effect. The big difference was this tended to effect the younger in the population disproportionately, due to loss of jobs etc. Given the high unemployment we're likely to see following this and the recession it's definitely a possibility that the attributed deaths could easily out number the response to the virus. At the impact is over years. Was the lockdown right? In our opinion yes, we didn't know exactly what we were dealing with. However given the amount of data we have now I'd say we should be pushing forward with getting the economy back up and running as soon as possible. The risks for certain age groups are very tolerable. Mathematically your risks of contracting the disease and being hospitalised by it under 40 are somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. (that wasn't made up either, a leading cambridge mathematician did the sums based on all current data) For us it's time to push forward but we respect peoples concerns, this is simply our views. Roughly 1% of the deaths have been in age group of 18-44 which is roughly 600 deaths. So saying " But of those the majority had underlying health issues. The data is based on an average fit and healthy under 40 year old living in what would be considered a developed nation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution. Your missing the points, the lockdown main aim was to slow the spread and protect the NHS and key workers yet approximately 300 people still died of COVID . I dread to think what the figures would have been without these restrictions. I think you need to re read the original post and the response we gave. And what if is a variable.. no one can reliably say what if.. What if we didn't work on a vaccine, what if we actually did a lockdown like other countries instead of the "you can't have a massive house party" but everything else is fine or people will complain lockdown. Based on all the current data and someone else's figures who are much smarter than us, that is what our reply was made on." My opinion (based on a little bit of medical knowledge and a great deal of math ability) is that if we had gone for an early quarantine of people coming into the country, and a much tighter lockdown about two weeks earlier than we did, then the disease would have been almost eradicated in this country at least a month ago, there wouldn't have been a quarter of the deaths and it would have cost much less to the economy. Eg. The australian model. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution. Your missing the points, the lockdown main aim was to slow the spread and protect the NHS and key workers yet approximately 300 people still died of COVID . I dread to think what the figures would have been without these restrictions. I think you need to re read the original post and the response we gave. And what if is a variable.. no one can reliably say what if.. What if we didn't work on a vaccine, what if we actually did a lockdown like other countries instead of the "you can't have a massive house party" but everything else is fine or people will complain lockdown. Based on all the current data and someone else's figures who are much smarter than us, that is what our reply was made on. My opinion (based on a little bit of medical knowledge and a great deal of math ability) is that if we had gone for an early quarantine of people coming into the country, and a much tighter lockdown about two weeks earlier than we did, then the disease would have been almost eradicated in this country at least a month ago, there wouldn't have been a quarter of the deaths and it would have cost much less to the economy. Eg. The australian model." Certainly no arguement from us with that one. We would have backed that policy and settled into our bunker with a cocktail and waited it out. Sadly that wasn't the case and we now find ourselves in this half arsed lockdown with contradictory rules and no real end in sight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution. Your missing the points, the lockdown main aim was to slow the spread and protect the NHS and key workers yet approximately 300 people still died of COVID . I dread to think what the figures would have been without these restrictions. I think you need to re read the original post and the response we gave. And what if is a variable.. no one can reliably say what if.. What if we didn't work on a vaccine, what if we actually did a lockdown like other countries instead of the "you can't have a massive house party" but everything else is fine or people will complain lockdown. Based on all the current data and someone else's figures who are much smarter than us, that is what our reply was made on. My opinion (based on a little bit of medical knowledge and a great deal of math ability) is that if we had gone for an early quarantine of people coming into the country, and a much tighter lockdown about two weeks earlier than we did, then the disease would have been almost eradicated in this country at least a month ago, there wouldn't have been a quarter of the deaths and it would have cost much less to the economy. Eg. The australian model. Certainly no arguement from us with that one. We would have backed that policy and settled into our bunker with a cocktail and waited it out. Sadly that wasn't the case and we now find ourselves in this half arsed lockdown with contradictory rules and no real end in sight. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Risks exist but they appear much less for certain age groups and demographics." And for those not at risk , add to that people now know about hand hygiene, avoiding close contact (distancing) or wear masks, more home working and shared surfaces in transport are finally being properly cleaned I’d say the risk of serious illness by COVD-19 is similar to being struck by lightening or winning the lottery | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a few interesting studies done about the impact of recession and unemployment on mortality rates. A 1% increase in unemployment was attributed to the death of 40,000 americans, through suicide, lack of funding to health and social services etc.. similar was viewed in the uk and Brazil as well as other countries. Obviously the numbers vary between countries but the economic impact had a very negative effect. The big difference was this tended to effect the younger in the population disproportionately, due to loss of jobs etc. Given the high unemployment we're likely to see following this and the recession it's definitely a possibility that the attributed deaths could easily out number the response to the virus. At the impact is over years. Was the lockdown right? In our opinion yes, we didn't know exactly what we were dealing with. However given the amount of data we have now I'd say we should be pushing forward with getting the economy back up and running as soon as possible. The risks for certain age groups are very tolerable. Mathematically your risks of contracting the disease and being hospitalised by it under 40 are somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. (that wasn't made up either, a leading cambridge mathematician did the sums based on all current data) For us it's time to push forward but we respect peoples concerns, this is simply our views." IT'S A FLU! We've suffered from them for years! This is a particularly nasty one, but for most healthy people it'll be no more than an uncomfortable couple of weeks? Unfortunately for the few vulnerable ones ( like myself) it could be a killer? So it's best if we keep a low profile and our close contacts observe due diligence for our sake? However hopefully for the majority of the population life should return to normal asap and the fit and able will just have to be more thoughtful towards us vulnerable types? I just hope the best of human nature will prevail and not the worse? Good luck to all my fellow vulnerable types with their families?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . ———— I think we are getting lost in what I was trying to put forward - the main point of this discussion really is that more people will die and will be chronically ill from the consequences of what I call a long term lockdown than direct coronavirus deaths and those numbers are out there already based on global crisis from 2008 death rates and chronic illnesses vs direct death from covid. Lockdown was not a mistake but now that enough information is out there it should be managed accordingly and it’s not ... we are moving from a hole that could be repaired into a hole that will have to be repaired by two generations and there is no reason for it in help of maths and scientific help. The deaths are one thing and we should respect them but the well-being and financial situation of millions of people is another thing because that directly equates to health being physical or mental of these people. I agree that a ‘long term’ lockdown isn’t viable but you compared the UK to Sweden who didn’t have an enforced lockdown at all. In my opinion the financial implications of the current lockdown would have been worse if we had had no restrictions and let the virus killing 100s of thousands of people " ———— I totally understand where you’re coming from because that’s exactly what I thought few weeks ago and I am still trying to pull all the necessary data to make a direct comparison but you are ignoring a little bit some of the facts that I’ve already given you and I bet Stockholm numbers will be higher taking into consideration population of both cities to be compared nevertheless please do not ignore the statistics from the ships as few thousands of people were based in reasonably small spaces for few weeks but even if they are 20% higher and then we should not be in a lockdown by now apart from most affected people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree. The human cost of lockdown is far greater than that of corona " I agree. I’m beginning to see this. The breakdown of relationships, the mental health strain, the pressure on families. I have a high needs non verbal autistic 6yr old and although he’s back at school mon-wed he’s totally thrown off by all this and it’s effected him and his development. He was really making progress in the wonderful school he got a place in too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you comparing outcomes of different political measures, rather than an illness to political measures? The austerity cuts, which I think you may be referring to from the 2008 crisis and the UK covid-19 response? The austerity measures which reputedly killed, were an option chosen and implemented by the Conservative party government, in coalition onwards from 2010. The UK covid-19 response, which differs markedly from others, has resulted in significantly more deaths. Take Germany as an example - Similar infection rates March 2020 between Germany and to the UK. Vastly more deaths in the UK ever since. Whilst Germany had previously invested in more hospital beds and resources, their virus response didn't need them to the extent that the UK did. In essence, some of the ops comparisons are between government decisions and the outcomes of those. Sadly, the 2 I've compared above haven't been shining examples of the quality of the approaches that have been made. There were and remain other alternatives, as we've seen globally from the global financial crisis and the covid19 disaster. The key factors we need to bear in mind are what values we place upon every individual human life. How expendable you are versus a more select few making a financial killing in the economy. There are many ways that we can prioritise things and often we don't need to create a false dichotomy for ourselves when we're doing this. " ————— Values which you mention are of high importance to me and exactly the reason why I’m comparing two different catastrophic situations, it’s not a comparison of few rich to the rest, it’s about millions of people in this country who will feel the consequences in one way or another but most importantly which will lead to deaths, deeper poverty and health loss - from economic and social view .... Germany which is also partially my mother country had a completely different strategy, first and foremost proper testing made the difference because only then you can come up with factual numbers and then use these to make further and proper decisions further to that sadly we can’t compare the state of German ‘NHS’ to U.K. NHS. Again, we have to step out of U.K. for information and base our decisions on global statistics and science and use them to this country’s advantage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . " Is that professor lockdown's computer model you are citing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? No. The figure will be higher than 50,000 and would have been at least 250,000 without lockdown measures . Is that professor lockdown's computer model you are citing? " I didn’t even know who that was, just googled now .... no, I’ve read some studies, looked at some international statistics and pulled some information out at them because I’m a very curious person but also because some things especially on BBC hurt my eyes : ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and by the way - someone mentioned vaccine - in Germany new laws have been imposed last month - you have to be vaccinated against covid once vaccine is out there, if you don’t you will loose your rights, what it means is that you are excluded from society- heavy stuff but for a different debate : ) " Indeed I believe herd immunity is a fair way to protect the public. Don't comply and be separated from the herd | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and by the way - someone mentioned vaccine - in Germany new laws have been imposed last month - you have to be vaccinated against covid once vaccine is out there, if you don’t you will loose your rights, what it means is that you are excluded from society- heavy stuff but for a different debate : ) " How will they lose their rights? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution. Your missing the points, the lockdown main aim was to slow the spread and protect the NHS and key workers yet approximately 300 people still died of COVID . I dread to think what the figures would have been without these restrictions. I think you need to re read the original post and the response we gave. And what if is a variable.. no one can reliably say what if.. What if we didn't work on a vaccine, what if we actually did a lockdown like other countries instead of the "you can't have a massive house party" but everything else is fine or people will complain lockdown. Based on all the current data and someone else's figures who are much smarter than us, that is what our reply was made on. My opinion (based on a little bit of medical knowledge and a great deal of math ability) is that if we had gone for an early quarantine of people coming into the country, and a much tighter lockdown about two weeks earlier than we did, then the disease would have been almost eradicated in this country at least a month ago, there wouldn't have been a quarter of the deaths and it would have cost much less to the economy. Eg. The australian model." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree. The human cost of lockdown is far greater than that of corona I agree. I’m beginning to see this. The breakdown of relationships, the mental health strain, the pressure on families. I have a high needs non verbal autistic 6yr old and although he’s back at school mon-wed he’s totally thrown off by all this and it’s effected him and his development. He was really making progress in the wonderful school he got a place in too "I work in homelessness with 16-21 year olds. Dv had increased and deaths from it, child abuse and safeguarding cases have increased, the numbers of homeless children have increased. The pandemic is a tragedy but so are the other things, that were it not for lockdown, would not have increased. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? " The 'Cure' is actually 'Prevention'. There is no Cure. Without prevention an estimated 250,000+ UK citizens could die from COVID-19. Economic crashes happen. Pandemics happen. Terrorist atrocities happen. Natural disasters happen. There are no simple solutions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...somewhere similar to being struck by lighting while holding a winning lottery ticket.. Pretty sure that the number of people struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket is zero, since the lottery began. Also pretty sure that the number of under 40 year olds that have been hospitalised with covid is more than zero... Yes, your chances with covid are very much better when you're younger, but please don't make silly false comparisons, it's disrespectful to those who have been severely ill and even died. Exactly, and let’s not forget the 300 plus deaths of NHS and care workers . Yep, again, no one is discounting those... But of those that have died, what age bracket did they fall into, what underlying health conditions did they have, BMI, high risk environment working etc. Any death is a tragedy which no one is denying or arguing. The response to the original post is based on is the cure worse than the disease. The reply to that was to present an opinion based on a few bits of recorded data. People then change the context and start bringing up "what about this person that died".. that's a completely different set of circumstances and not in the context of our reply to the original question. So yes.. to sum up.. other people have died.. thank you for that contribution. Your missing the points, the lockdown main aim was to slow the spread and protect the NHS and key workers yet approximately 300 people still died of COVID . I dread to think what the figures would have been without these restrictions. I think you need to re read the original post and the response we gave. And what if is a variable.. no one can reliably say what if.. What if we didn't work on a vaccine, what if we actually did a lockdown like other countries instead of the "you can't have a massive house party" but everything else is fine or people will complain lockdown. Based on all the current data and someone else's figures who are much smarter than us, that is what our reply was made on. My opinion (based on a little bit of medical knowledge and a great deal of math ability) is that if we had gone for an early quarantine of people coming into the country, and a much tighter lockdown about two weeks earlier than we did, then the disease would have been almost eradicated in this country at least a month ago, there wouldn't have been a quarter of the deaths and it would have cost much less to the economy. Eg. The australian model. "
It was not introducing quarantine - or any sort of testing (even temperature) on entry - and introducing a soft lockdown way too late that got us where we are. But no, mustn’t hurt the economy then becomes we’ve wrecked the economy... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? The 'Cure' is actually 'Prevention'. There is no Cure. Without prevention an estimated 250,000+ UK citizens could die from COVID-19. Economic crashes happen. Pandemics happen. Terrorist atrocities happen. Natural disasters happen. There are no simple solutions." Where did you get the estimate of 250.000, I would be interested to read more? .... the actual estimate was epidemiological model from Imperial College London projected that without drastic interventions, more than half a million Britons would die from covid and that was information used by the government to move into lockdown, however at that time this data was based on reduced data coming from China and Italy.... new models show infection rate at 17 to 19% rate and death at 0.00....% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? The 'Cure' is actually 'Prevention'. There is no Cure. Without prevention an estimated 250,000+ UK citizens could die from COVID-19. Economic crashes happen. Pandemics happen. Terrorist atrocities happen. Natural disasters happen. There are no simple solutions. Where did you get the estimate of 250.000, I would be interested to read more? .... the actual estimate was epidemiological model from Imperial College London projected that without drastic interventions, more than half a million Britons would die from covid and that was information used by the government to move into lockdown, however at that time this data was based on reduced data coming from China and Italy.... new models show infection rate at 17 to 19% rate and death at 0.00....% " Are you basing your death rate on the whole population? Surely the death rate should be based on the number of people with the virus? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... at least 130,000 people in the U.K. had died due to the 2008 financial crisis, 500.000 more cancer deaths worldwide, 10.000 more suicides and according to new studies 900.000 people with chronic illnesses of which 50% long term... 130.000 deaths vs 50.000 deaths - is cure worse than the disease? in order to solve one problem are we creating a bigger problem? The 'Cure' is actually 'Prevention'. There is no Cure. Without prevention an estimated 250,000+ UK citizens could die from COVID-19. Economic crashes happen. Pandemics happen. Terrorist atrocities happen. Natural disasters happen. There are no simple solutions. Where did you get the estimate of 250.000, I would be interested to read more? .... the actual estimate was epidemiological model from Imperial College London projected that without drastic interventions, more than half a million Britons would die from covid and that was information used by the government to move into lockdown, however at that time this data was based on reduced data coming from China and Italy.... new models show infection rate at 17 to 19% rate and death at 0.00....% Are you basing your death rate on the whole population? Surely the death rate should be based on the number of people with the virus?" No, on current numbers and predictions made - for example scientists in Germany claim that 15% of Germans have been infected based on a study and of that 0.3% died. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
